text:
To Our Amazement, Charlie Brown Connected, Lucy Apologized, a Man Who Said "Yes We Can," Would: Anything Is Possible … Means Everything Is Possible
Wonderful Can Happen: With Dumbness at the Top and Media as the New Opiate of the Masses, Still, "Yes, We Can" Proved We Could.
Culture War, Class War, Chapter 23: Something Wonderful Can Happen
There Are Good Reasons Why Our Financial and Environmental Fortunes Careen Wildly About: Dumbness Rises to the Top
Blinded by Their Greed, They Overlook the Obvious: Why Our National Misfortunes Are Greeted with Such Surprise by Authorities and Pundits
Voices Never Heard
What I've been trying to say here is, there are perspectives that are relevant and are never heard. And I'm talking about perspectives that are right outside the doors of power ready to talk and be heard; often having been perspectives that had been embraced not long ago, but suddenly, not having any credibility at all…so that our democracy of many voices—now with the filthy rich and their Republican lackeys and their paid-for media in collusion to mine only one avenue of discourse—begins to echo the Soviet Union of old with its one voice, Pravda.
Horrors Far Worse
Back in 2000, I also had written,
"I believe we are in grave danger of losing things far worse than those horrors. I believe we are in danger of losing all hope of maintaining, let alone progressing, in the freedoms and privileges that we take for granted."
I believe our friend speaks eloquently about some of those far greater horrors, and indicates they are there right now on our doorstep. We had a surplus and a will to tackle them a decade ago. Sadly we have wasted the last ten years reversing those environmental policies whose intent it was to help. And we have reversed our financial situation, which could have helped. In addition, we have reversed the restrictions on corporations and other policies that would have helped and at least slowed down this ominous impending doom.
So we are a decade further along in environmental collapse, and it is has increased its acceleration toward us. Meanwhile we have slashed away at our financial and other resources for dealing with it and chopped back the time in which to work. The way I phrased it a decade ago.
So is this election important? I believe it is. For me it is especially important, for I feel that if the Republicans take over, they will do so much to damage to the dreams of my generation that even if the Democrats were to be reelected to all branches of government in 4 or 8 years, they will do so much damage (the example of Reagan-Bush nearly QUADRUPLING the National Debt in their mere 12 years being the perfect example) that My Generation will have to clean up their mess afterwards, taking more years. And only then will we be in a position to progress in this country and world and bring it more in line with the ideals of peace, love, community, and harmony we envisioned in the Sixties.
So what I mean is that if we fail in the next 80 days, I can envision no more time of real hope again, for this country or the world, until I am in my Sixties, Seventies, or older. And then, even then, there will be no real hope. For as it is said of the poor, these forces of regression, Cowboy shoot-ourselves-in-the-foot, cynicism, and – let us call it what it really is: evil – will always be with us.
Dumbness Rises to the Top
And sure enough, as we all know…and what these people could not even imagine, as that trader put it, well, it is happening. One wonders what these buffoons who could not foresee such things will do in terms of fixing them; having acknowledged their extreme lack of foresight (and we've added, their extreme inability to look anywhere farther than their tight knit group of true believers for answers.) This should be something to see.
As for Wall Street and the economy, let's take another look at how the media has dealt with other perspectives to flesh out my claims above of these perspectives not being far off.
On CNBC, a couple of years before the economic downturn, they used to have as a commentator, Robert Reich, who was President Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury and the mastermind of the great economic turnaround of the Nineties.
But he was talked over, laughed at, and was routinely talked to as if he was a child or suffered sadly from some kind of bleeding heart brain cloud. Well, as his words began to be the ones that should have been listened to, he was no longer to be seen on CNBC. And then afterward we have such a comment like, "Well, nobody could have seen it coming."
Well how could they, if they were no longer put on the show?
No, apparently there was such an insular crowd on Wall Street, the White House, and, most unfortunate, among the very media whose job it was neither to make news as prognosticators or economic experts, nor was it to be part of a partisan "anti-plunge patrol." Their lack of even-handedness and their alliance with particular theories created just the kind of apparent reality that the trader bemoaned. No, it wasn't that nobody was seeing it coming–as you see below, I was seeing it as inevitable from the shared experience of a mere decade or so ago. And I mention one figure who was silenced. So to the mystified trader who knew no one who saw anything but, as one particularly wrong-headed man phrased it, "a goldilocks economy."
So, blinded by their greed, they missed what the people I knew were all seeing—danger ahead, and the unsustainability of a rally that had risen on so much manipulation, misinformation, and constant drum blows of obviously wrong economic talking points hammered over and over across our airwaves and drowning out every sound of warning or opposition, so that surprise and misinformation informed the trading decisions of the great bull traders.
So many people were hurt by this partisan power play. But that was the way of just about everything during those 8 years of, as one recent writer dubbed it, dictatorship.
If you're still reading, you will see I have reasons for pointing these things out, providing this background, for it is this context of a kind of dumbness rising to the top which, even now, makes for the strangest of comments on TV talk shows, and the most asinine and foot-shooting policies and stances of the remaining Republicans.
Media Feel-Good Talk Does Not Equal Reality … and Why We're Helpless to Prevent the Future Fukushimas and Killer Hurricanes.
Media Is the New "Opiate of the Masses," with Pundits a New Priestly Caste Between Modern Pharoahs and the New Enslaved.
Media Mollifies Masses
All this being said, now, perhaps for you the Message in a Bottle provides, as it did to me, a provocative window into the workings of cause and effect. More than that I hope it sheds light on the huge efforts of deception that are ever needed to advance false partisan ideas which, though proven wrong, will by greed be raised anew and banner-like be carried forth to beat back the voices of common sense in favor of a reality that must be forced to be made to be true only because its rich adherents would wish it to be so.
Media Feel-Good Talk Does Not Equal Reality
Another advantage of having the time capsule is what we can learn about such warnings. Will the media tell you of impending doom, so that we might avert it?
No, they will, for the sake of ratings (profits), be a "feel good" media. They will spin out "comfort truth" — junk food for the mind — insubstantial and inconsequential and hardly soul-satisfying. But it will soothe the stresses brought to listeners through their otherwise participation in the capitalist matrix. As empty of truth as junk food is empty of nutrition it will act as medicine for the troubles of the postmodern soul—enslaved and unfree—but unaware even of that…and unable to even know that. So this media will serve the functions that religion once did for the elite, becoming another opiate of the masses. And the pundits will play the role of the priestly intermediaries between our modern pharoahs—the banksters and the filthy rich—and the masses upon which they feed.
So no, it is not the media's role to warn us of disaster. Hardly. Indeed, when that disaster is one of the many forthcoming from the actions of those elite they serve, it will be the media's job to set up the screens of smoke and trivia to distract and entertain away from real concerns. Then they will, as we've seen, report afterward on it and bring out the "No one could have foreseen this happening." Well that is a self-serving lie. I hope that is gleaned from all this if nothing else.
I've been detailing on the media complicity, indeed, facility in the Great Recession caused by the tax cutting policies of George W Bush. But since then we have seen Fukushima, the BP oil spill, and Sandy. Could Fukushima have been prevented? Yes. For I can personally tell you, as an anti-nuke activist in the Eighties, how we were warning back then of the immense dangers of nuclear power plants and especially those on earthquake fault lines. Has the media advanced that story line? You know the answer to that.
Has the media since Fukushima kept us informed on developments there so we might prepare for the consequences coming to us from that? I'll put it this way, I've had otherwise knowledgeable people tell me that "It is a good thing Fukushima turned out how it did … it could have been worse." Worse? Something far worse than Chernobyl—which itself resulted in one million deaths (where's the media on that fact?)—turned out ok? For this we can thank a media that stopped reporting on developments there when it turned out they could not spin it in any feel-good way. Things got worse, are still getting worse, and they stopped covering it.
Then there's Sandy. It is being said this has brought climate change and global warming back into the dialogue. But why was it not in already? We have an entire political party in America hell bent on ignoring global warming in their insane pursuit of profits at any and all costs. Has the media been on top of this? Those self-interested climate-denying Republicans—has the media been holding their feet to the fire? Have they even lit a match near their feet? You know the answer again. For prior to Sandy and in four presidential and vice presidential debates there was not even ONE question … from the media, mind you … on the environment … let alone, climate change or Fukushima. Yet there was plenty of interest in setting up the candidates to see who could be the most manly on drilling and fracking our way to ecological hell.
Feel good media? I think so! At odds with reality? You tell me.
In the Past It Has Had Horrific Consequences.
Feel-good talk does not equal reality. If it did there would not have been the Nazis, the Holocaust, a Stalin—five million dead; a Cambodia—millions dead; a Rwanda—dead dead dead; or an AIDS epidemic—uncountable dead and growing.
Yet what I wrote over a decade ago, at the time if it had been shared in any place of power, would no doubt have been challenged by this word: "Paranoid." This is the common way the public uses denial to avoid harsh realities. Blame the messengers, the dangers go away. I'm sure my planetmate friend's piece earlier has already been labeled that way: "Paranoid." "It's all paranoia on the part of some crazies" is the common attitude.
That is the way we keep out the truth. It is like using a drug to ease the pain of your cancer, but it doesn't do anything to keep you from dying.
Indeed, the planetmates' lament, though it be labeled paranoid, is based on the findings of the best scientific minds of our times about the environmental collapses—the outright ecocide that is upon us from so many causes and in ways that are now uncountable in number. Their message is so much more important in that we will likely reach the point of no return long before the masses of humanity are severely suffering from the continued environmental assault. I don't like to say it, but it needs to be said that some are convinced that it is already too late, that we had a window of opportunity and blew it. I know of groups in the know who are absolutely convinced there is no saving us now and that it is naïve to expect anything but doom.
Troubling it is that, on top all that's been said about this message and what it has told us about what we lost and how far we are now from where we need to go, not to mention knowing we were betrayed by our government obviously, we now realize without a doubt our media too helped when they could have stopped it all.
Wonderful Can Happen, Part Three — Amazingly, Charlie Brown Connects: Remember … "Yes, We Can" Proved We Could
Shaken Out of Our Mental Maze, We Would Be A-Mazed: Lucy Apologizes, Sisyphus Rests, A Man Who Said "Yes We Can," Would
Why Know This? Amazingly, Charlie Brown Connects
So, these things we know. They are sobering rationalizations and ones we should not run from.
But lastly and most importantly, these prescient thoughts of long ago help me. I find that these time-capsule writings from my former mind are able to inform me and sharpen my vision of the Now, as the events continue unfolding and rolling relentlessly over and through us and are reflected in high-pixel, high-def, infinite colors clarity on the flat screens all about. This time is felt and witnessed, the story being revealed cinema-like, but with pundits galore expounding 24/7, like loud-mouthed fellow movie-goers.
But then also they become the movie and are interwoven into the times themselves. And their words, with this time capsule before me, are sounding childish, repetitive, forgetful, amnesiacal. Especially this is true as many of the ones speaking now are remembered as being the exact persons commenting then. And their words, little changed, bespeak a zen-like ability to be newly alarmed, being reborn in every minute, but yet totally unchanged and untaught by all the years of witnessing and commentary. So they also have forgotten the way they once saw the world and their life … just as I once did.
If We Knew, Would We Act?
It seems a defense mechanism to forget that we saw all this coming. For to know that is to despair in realizing the impotence, even, of awareness. Who wants to realize that in these matters even a knowledge of the story line, as if having seen the movie once before, is totally useless? Who wants to think that there is a helplessness in affecting the events of our lives and times, that there is a total futility in changing or steering away or around even the tragedies clearly seen beforehand?
For knowing this we feel as detached as actual cinema-goers from the unfolding of the plotline. We feel ourselves to be not actors and hardly even the scriptwriters of our lives, instead merely the witnesses of intensely shocking and stunning events, which we actually expected but hoped we would be wrong about. So wouldn't we want to block out that awareness of the futility of our actions? Wouldn't we have to in order to have the heart to keep going at it? To get up and keep trying every day?
Sisyphus Remembering, Would He Continue Pushing?
If we remembered, like Charlie Brown approaching the football, or like Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the hill… if we remembered, would we continue to act?
No, we have to believe that we will be surprised this time, that indeed Lucy will hold the football and we will complete the kick. It is said that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. As true as that is, how ironic then that we realize that those who remember history too clearly are doomed to helplessness in the midst of its unfolding. So it seems we are ineffectual either way.
But There's More To It
Yet this is not the whole truth. If it were, then the cynicism we felt about "The Audacity of Hope"…remember that book?…well, that cynicism would have proven a correct perception. We would have been bored, again, watching a naïve young idealistic black man—like the many before, differing only in skin color—seeing his efforts, visions, hopes, and heartfelt desires to be helpful and to love away some of the darkness in the world around him vanish like the memory of yesterday's storm-driven winds. But we, I, was one time wrong in that cynicism.
Lucy Apologizes, Sisyphus Rests.
To the astonishment, truly, of an entire world, Charlie Brown connected with the football, Lucy apologized for her past actions, and one heavy boulder remained steady on the top of a hill and gave a man a much needed rest from his endless labors.
For one incredible and glorious time, the movie we'd seen had a different ending—amazing enough in itself. But also the tragedy in the original did not occur. And as if God had for a time touched this planet, this Reality we call our World, our Life…as if God had just for one time touched, tipped, and turned our events, the awesomely unexpected happened.
A man so unbelievably naïve and unaware as to declare the "audacity of hope" and to call out and stir up the masses, deluding them as we've seen so many times before, that "yes, we can," would.
Shaken Out of Our Mental Maze, We Would Be A-Mazed.
And we'd have to pinch ourselves to believe it to actually be happening even as we witnessed it. That he would actually succeed in doing exactly what he said he would do would not only show us that a man could actually affect the course of events, would show us that a person could not only change things from the way they'd always been (what kind of man can this be?). But that he would do it in a grand and sweeping way would be all the more astonishing. We would be all the more unbelieving that a man who said "yes we can" not only could but he could do it in a way that achieved beyond merely succeeding; never mind that merely succeeding would be doing the impossible.
The Only Thing We Can Be Truly Sure Of … Is We Can Never Be Sure… Which Means That Anything Is Possible… Which Means That Everything Is Possible.
Our Inability to Know Is the Source of a Hope That IS Real: Wonderful Can Happen, Part Four: It's Just as Likely the Miraculous Will Happen.
Just When We Thought We Knew…
So I am saddened having been awakened from my forgetfulness by this catscan of a mind perfectly preserved in an electronically sealed time capsule… oh, what could have been…. But then I remember, happily, that we are, I am, imperfect prophets and seers. That just when it seems we know, for sure now, how things are, the way the world is, and how the movie will end; that just then when we know, totally convinced we are, that truly things will be as they will be and that it is futile to rail against the inevitable, to hope, even to try; that just then when we have finally accepted "reality for what it is," accepted "life on its own terms" not ours; that when we'd given up the things of youth, accepted the limitations of life, addressed ourselves, resignedly, to carrying forward on the mundane things of life, to the ordinary activities of everyperson, to the simple responsibilities and expectations of every man, every person, from every time that's ever been and accepted the unrelenting lack of specialness in either our times or ourselves…that just at that time we would be touched and wakened to see that the most unchanging thing of life is not its utter resistance to change, its utter forgetfulness and repetition, but is the mysterious darkness surrounding the utter clarity of everyday knowingness, is in fact the imperfection of ourselves even as we observe so clearly the assured imperfection of the world.
Anything Is Possible… Which Means That Everything Is Possible
Sounds complicated. What I'm saying I think is important enough to repeat. I'll say it more simply.
The most unchanging thing of life is not the things we see that never change. They are not the most unchanging thing of life. The most unchanging thing of life is something surrounding the absolute clarity we have about these things, these harsh realities even. When you've finally come to accept life, you've accepted these unpleasant things, these hard truths, and you think that for sure now you've got it, that it was all about learning to accept that…and thereby become the "adult," the seasoned, assured cynic.
Accepting Life's Pain. But Because We Are Imperfect…
But rather, the most unchanging and most true thing about life is that no matter how much we think we know how exactly life is, there's a darkness surrounding that utter everyday clarity that we carry around and share with our neighbors, reinforcing it's trueness. There's a darkness surrounding it. And that darkness is in fact the imperfection of our selves. We're not perfect; we're not all-knowing. It is in fact the imperfection of ourselves even as we observe so clearly the assured imperfection of the world, you see. I'm being sarcastic there.
What I'm saying is: Knowing that, we know that it is exactly the imperfection that is the most solid thing in life. You see? It's not the things that they try to make solid. This is the thing that is solid, is gonna be there, always. Nobody has to try to make that happen, there's always going to be an unknown.
Therefore, since there's always going to be an unknown there's always going to be human imperfection. For we may think we know everything, sometimes. But only a fool goes through life very long thinking that. And so, in knowing that, knowing that that's the most unchanging thing of life, the thing you can really count on, that's never going to go away…well, we know that it is exactly the imperfection, that lack that's in a person, that evil, that unmoving wrongness of the world that we have tried so futilely to change, that being in us, is the source of the blessedness of life, which is the fact that our ultimate unknowingness is the only true source of a hope that IS real,
It's Possible "Something Wonderful Is Going to Happen."
It is only because we know that we cannot really know, for sure, that then we can know for sure that there's always got to be hope because we could never know for sure that there wasn't. So, what a blessing that is. That being wrong, being imperfect means something unbelievable when you think of it: Which is that against all odds, "something wonderful is going to happen."
Ultimate unknowingness is the only true source of a hope that is real. And you say, how can you say that? You say, that's not true. Then I ask you, are you perfect? You say, no. Then I say, the only true thing is that you're not perfect, so that anything you are absolutely sure is wrong has a possibility of being right.
And Anything Is Possible … Means Everything Is Possible.
So, who knows? You might say that we don't know what's real. That's true, of course, so why would we necessarily think things are dire right now? Why, it's just as possible that something wonderful is going to happen. It's just as likely that, in spite of ourselves, the miraculous can happen; that magic is real; and that hope, and happiness, and blessedness, and forgiveness, and glorious divine wonders beyond even the envisioning of our ideals are possible.
And all because the only thing that we can be truly sure of—even when we are finally convinced that we should not expect anything special—is that we can never be sure… which means that anything is possible… which means that everything is possible.
Continue with Culture War, Class War, Chapter Twenty-Four: Naked Republicans
Return to Culture War, Class War, Chapter 22: Horrors Worse Than That
Posted in authenticity, being yourself, Consciousness, Environmentalism, Evolution, God, individualism, life, meaning, Metaphysics, Mystical, nonconform, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Religion, Spirituality
Tags: 1%, 2000, 2012, 60s, 70s, 99%, activism, AIDS, Alan Greenspan, america, american, anti nuke, apocalypse, apology, audacity, authenticity, authorities, awareness, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, blessedness, blessing, BP oil spill, budget, Bush, cambodia, candidates, Cantor, capitalism, capsule, carter, caste, change, charlie brown, Chernobyl, class, class war, climate, climate change, climate denyers, CNBC, commentary, commentators, common sense, Consciousness, corporations, CULTURE, culture war, cynicism, danger, darkness, death, debates, defense mechanism, democrat, democrats, denial, despair, dictatorship, die, disaster, doom, dreams, Dumbness, earthquake, ecocide, ecology, economics, economy, ed, election, elite, enslaved, Environment, environmental collapse, environmental policies, events, evil, evolution, experts, extinction, filthy, filthy rich, football, foresight, forgiveness, fracking, freedom, Fukushima, futility, generation, George W. Bush, global warming, God, goldilocks economy, gore, government, great, Great Recession, greed, happen, happiness, health, helpless, helplessness, history, Holocaust, hope, horror, humanicide, humanity, humanticide, hurricane, Hurricane Sandy, idealism, ideals, ignorance, impending doom, imperfect, imperfection, individualism, intellectuals, JFK, Kennedy, knowledge, Kudlow, lackeys, Larry Kudlow, lies, life, Lucy, magic, many voices, Martin Luther King, masses, matrix, mccain, media, message, mind, miracles, misfortune, misinformation, Mitt Romney, movie, mr, National Debt, Nature, Nazis, neumann, news, nonconform, nuclear power, Obama, obvious, occupy wall street, opiate of the masses, ows, pain, paranoia, partisan, peek-a-boo, perspectives, pharaohs, pharoahs, philosophy, planet, Planetmate, politics, poor, possible, power, Pravda, presidential election, priestly caste, profits, prophets, psychohistory, psychology, pundits, puppet, rant, ratings, reagan, reality, Regan-Bush, regression, reich, religion, republican, republicans, reveal, rich, Robert Reich, Romney, rush limbaugh, Rwanda, Ryan, Sandy, science, seers, Seventies, sisyphus, sixties, society, something, soul, Soviet Union, spirituality, Stalin, stupidity, success, suffer, superstorm, surprise, tax cuts, tea party, The Audacity of Hope, time, time capsule, truth, truths, unknowingness, unknown, voices, wall street, war, warning, wealthy, White House, wilber, wonderful, wonders, world, yes we can
On CNBC/, a couple of years before the economic downturn, they used to have as a commentator, Robert Reich, who was President Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury and the mastermind of the great economic turnaround of the Nineties.
Continue with Media Feel-Good Talk Does Not Equal Reality … and Why We're Helpless to Prevent the Future Fukushimas and Killer Hurricanes.
Return to Culture War, Class War, Chapter 22:
Horrors Worse Than That
Posted in authenticity, being yourself, Consciousness, Environmentalism, nonconform, Politics, Psychology, Spirituality, video
Tags: 1%, 2012, 60s, 70s, 99%, Alan Greenspan, america, apocalypse, authenticity, authorities, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Bush, Cantor, CNBC, collusion, Consciousness, corporations, CULTURE, danger, death, democrats, dictatorship, die, doom, dreams, Dumbness, economics, election, Environment, environmental collapse, environmental policies, evil, experts, extinction, filthy rich, foresight, freedom, Fukushima, generation, George W. Bush, goldilocks economy, grave danger, greed, horror, Hurricane Sandy, ignorance, impending doom, Kudlow, lackeys, Larry Kudlow, life, many voices, matrix, media, misfortune, misinformation, Mitt Romney, National Debt, nonconform, Obama, obvious, occupy wall street, ows, partisan, perspectives, planet, politics, poor, power, Pravda, presidential election, psychology, Regan-Bush, regression, republicans, Robert Reich, Romney, rush limbaugh, Ryan, Sandy, Seventies, sixties, society, Soviet Union, stupidity, surprise, voices, wall street, White House
Foolin' the People … About Money, About "Us" (The 1%), About Taxes, About Job Creation, About Democrats, About Republicans, About Generations, About Your Life, About You: Choose the Red Pill
Money Madness and the Rise of "Obvious Truths" … Around Taxes, the Wealthy, Job Creation, Democrats, Republicans, Generations, Your Life, and You: When ALL You Hear Are Lies, You Think It HAS to Be Truth
Culture War, Class War, Chapter Fifteen: Money Madness
Tax the Wealthy, You're Taxing Me … Foolin' the People About Money
Obvious "Truths"—Fiscally Responsible Republicans and Tax and Spend Democrats
Obvious "Truths":
Tax the wealthy, you're taxing me.
Democrats tax and spend, they bust the budget, balloon the National Debt.
Republicans are fiscally responsible, fiscally conservative; they balance budgets and are careful about the National Debt.
Rich people create the jobs.
The wealthy are society's creative sector.
That "class warfare" stuff "just doesn't work."
Obvious "Truth" – Tax the Wealthy, You're Taxing Me
But when you hear the same things again and again, even black-and-white facts can be put up for dispute. For example, during the 2008 presidential race and prior to Obama's first budget the Democrats' tax proposal was explained as a tax cut for the middle class and no increase on any Americans making less than two hundred thousand a year. This was a black-and-white fact, part of the public record, not in dispute. But how did the Republicans explain it?
That's a Small Business?
I certainly heard it, over and over again; I bet you did too. Republicans were saying the tax proposal was going to affect small businesses. So we have small businesses that are making over two hundred thousand a year in pure profit? And that's a small business? That's a smallbusiness? I think if you're making, after all your deductions and everything and you're still making two hundred grand, I think that you're not a small business, I think you can afford extra taxes, but that's what we are told.
We're All Rich. Somehow I Missed That Memo.
So apparently we got a group of people who think that people are really rich. The assumption is that most Americans are rolling in dough so that any tax increase on the wealthy is an attack on all Americans.
So, you can't tax that sliver of the very, very wealthy a little bit more so that the majority of Americans might benefit. Benefiting the majority of Americans used to be how you got to "home base." But now, it's like, "No, you can't tax Americans; we are Taxed Enough Already!"
Obvious "Truth": The Democrats' Want to Take Your Money.
The way this "obvious truth" is phrased now…no way to get around it, it's a flat out lie…goes, "You can't tax the very rich, cause that's…" and they'll just say it right out, "that's gonna affect all Americans, that's taxing everybody."
Well how did it get to that conclusion when actually it's going to lower taxes. And they were saying it over and over again, "No, we don't even need to know what the plan is; we just know he's a Democrat and that he's going to raise taxes," they would say of Obama…or for that matter of any Democrat at any time in recent history.
Now, how did that become true? Well because…he's a Democrat and well haven't you ever heard the term tax and spend Democrats? And there we go again.
Obvious "Truth" – Fiscally Responsible Republicans
Pointing Some Fingers Already
Alright, let's go back. Pre-Roosevelt turn of the century initiatives so common and familiar now, such as the Food and Drug Administration, are the kinds of things Democrats brought in that added to government. Yet, Republicans spout misinformation; they get people angry about "evils" of such "big government."
Misplaced Credit
The Democrats are the ones who brought in the FDA, worker's rights, workman's compensation. They're the ones who put in Medicare. They're the ones who put in Social Security.
Misplaced Blame
And we remember the Republicans are the ones who created the Great Depression, created poverty for everybody at that time. They're the ones who did it again with Bush, who tripled and nearly quadrupled the National Debt under the twelve years of Reagan-Bush, then more than doubled it under George W. That's a lot of goddamn money.
That's a Lot of Money.
And then the Republicans were giving away seven hundred billion dollars to rich people who afterward were giddy in their ingratitude. This giveaway, keep in mind, came at the end of Bush's terms. And you would hear CEOs bragging how they're not going to spend any of that on people; they're not going to use any of that money to loaning any of it out, which was supposed to be the purpose.
And even afterward, all Congressmen were agreeing that's a huge amount of money, which at the time was the biggest amount of money being spent at one time, in such a short period of time on anything. And how could we forget that they just took the money and did whatever they wanted with it? They paid off debts to other rich friends; they went overseas and invested in other countries.
Chase Didn't Use the Money for What It Was Intended.
Goldman Sachs used sixteen billion of what it received to pay off an outstanding debt to a German bank. The head of Chase bank is known to have said he wasn't going to use the money to increase credit. In fact, he said he was going to keep that money and he was basically going to feather his nest with it and keep Chase solvent so that when other banks went under he could buy them up with it. That's the money of the taxpayers he's playing "Monopoly" with, mind you.
Obvious "Truths" – Tax and Spend Democrats
But stacked up against the facts we have this idea of tax and spend Democrats. It's been repeated, going back many decades. It basically goes back to Roosevelt who ended the Depression and benefited virtually all Americans. And now that's somehow a bad thing, brought up to get you mad about the tax and spend Democrat. And they've got all Americans convinced that if you vote for a Democrat, they're going to take your money, they're going to tax it, and they're going to spend it on somebody else. Well, that has nothing to do with the truth.
Social Security, Medicare, and Surpluses, Oh My!
It has nothing to do with the truth. Certainly Roosevelt benefited all Americans with Social Security and so on; certainly Medicare, brought in under Lyndon Johnson benefited the vast majority of Americans. All these things the Democrats did. And Clinton raised taxes on the very rich a few percentage points and balanced the budget. Clinton created jobs and prosperity, balanced the budget, reduced the National Debt, and created a surplus that could have gone into creating a better America for all Americans. But, no, that was considered bad, because they said it hurt all Americans when the extremely wealthy had to give a little more in taxes.
The Fun Times Anticipating the Surplus
Never mind the facts, never mind that fact that we had a surplus that we were talking gleefully about how we were going to spend it. If you can remember, we were discussing investing in better roads and infrastructure that would have benefited even the businesses.
Stealing Home
But no, it wasn't about the truth anymore, it was about how you made it to home base, how you got money for yourself. And it didn't matter anymore if you just skipped all the bases, and you started at home and went to home…if you just took the money. I mean, after a while the Republicans could just do that; tax breaks for the wealthy just because they were wealthy. Because, after a while, after all those years of repeating it: They could get away with, If you tax the wealthy you're taxing all Americans. Wow.
The Wealthy Are the Creative Sector All Right … Creative in Stealing Our Money
Obvious "Truth"—The Wealthy Are the Job Creators
Poor folks don't create jobs, don't invest their money.
Obvious "Truth" – Rich People Create the Jobs
Obvious "Truth"—The Wealthy Are Society's Creative Sector.
Yes, I have actually heard it said this way; a good chance you have too. Here's how it works: Raising taxes on the wealthiest is gonna hurt all Americans because by taxing that sliver of the upper two percent of Americans, you are inhibiting the creative sector's ability to create jobs. Rich folks are society's wealth creators. The wealthy are the creative people in our country.
They're Creative All Right.
They're the creative people, huh? Yea, they're creative in stealing from us. They're creative in fattening their wallets at our expense. They're creative in getting people elected who are liars and things like that.
That's not the kind of creativity I'd like to have. As far as creating jobs. Who creates jobs?
Excess Wealth Given to the Rich Created High Art Prices, Not High Employment.
Here's the facts. You know all that money that was given to the rich people? All those tax incentives given to the rich people by Reagan? Well, It didn't create jobs so much as it created a lot of excess wealth that went into, well, people were buying yachts, and they were investing in art objects that were being bid through the roof.
The wealthy were scrambling; they had so much money they were fighting over art objects. And the art objects — paintings and so on, famous paintings – were making headlines in being sold for so much. During the Eighties under Reagan it was common to hear of 39 million dollars for such and such…58 million, 82 million. Of the 25 most expensive paintings ever sold, only two did not come at a time when tax cuts of either Reagan or one of the Bushes were in effect. And because what? Because the rich had so much extra freakin money. Now you tell me how many jobs money tied up in art objects created?
Real Truth—The Rich Will Squander or Sit on Extra Money.
I mean it isn't rocket science. It's very simple … simple psychology. This has to do with facts: You give money to rich people who don't need it, they're the ones who are going to squander it; they're the ones who are going to spend it frivolously, or not going to spend it just let it sit. They're not going to benefit society with it; they're not going to multiply it; they're not going to invest.
In economics this is called diminishing marginal returns. Simply put, it means that food eaten by a hungry person will reap greater reward than the food consumed later when the person is satiated. The same amount of money funneled into projects, or people, will have a greater percentage return when sorely needed than when not; a dollar will go far toward feeding a hungry African child and will be as nothing for a rich American. You simply cannot throw money at folks or ventures and expect to get as much, let alone more, return or reward later when the person is less "hungry" or the project less "starved" for funds..
Obvious "Truth": Non-Wealthy Folks Don't Create Jobs, Don't Invest Their Money
Real Truth: People With Less Money Will Sweat Over and Multiply Money, What They Can.
Whereas, you give a fraction of that money to a poor person, a tiny amount of that to a poor or moderate income person and what will they do? You have any idea how somebody who is poor will make a little bit of money go a long long way?
I saw my father do it. He is the same person making the meager fifty dollars a week at one point. And he wasn't making much more, but he eventually got a truck driving contract with the U.S. postal service. He was able to own several trucks and to hire several workers.
So, why did he do that? Because he didn't have a lot of money. And by taking those chances and becoming a businessperson, taking that little bit of money he had, he created jobs for a few other people. Because he was motivated, he was desperate. And for him it was all about a chance to raise himself out of being poor. He spent his life scanning for such opportunities till he finally came across one.
Billionaires Are Not Highly Motivated to Become Millionaires.
So you have people who would take any money coming their way to better their situation in life, the real American way. They would really love to be millionaires; they would risk their very lives for that. They would work their asses off. But those folks aren't the people who are already billionaires.
But Nobody Will Point This Out!
So you've got these inanities thrown out there. They're being said over and over again…" Rich people create the jobs; they're society's creative sector." These obvious untruths are not being countered by journalists and pundits. There is really no one pointing out that anything is a lie, there's nobody saying out loud that these self-serving pronouncements are untrue, or that what is being said is vastly different from the facts.
Makin' People Foolish – Foolin' the People About "Us" (The Rich)
Makin' Foolish People – Foolin' the People About "Us" (The Rich)
Things you hear a lot are true.
Simple "truths" are real truths.
Democrats think they're better than everybody; they're snobs, elitists….
Unlike Republicans who are regular people just like me, folks I could sit and have a beer with…who'd understand me.
Confused People Take Comfort in Stupidity
When ALL You Hear Are Lies, You Begin to Think It Has to Be the Truth.
So, what happens? What is the result of these things being heard long enough, with nobody countering them or anything. It's natural, if you hear something said enough, you don't question it.
I myself am that way. I was told that we should go into Iraq because there was weapons of mass destruction. I didn't hear anybody saying anything differently. So I believed it. Well, that turned out to be a lie.
It's just natural that if you don't hear anything to counter something, you're going to believe that the only thing being said is the truth. And that certainly has increased over time…through the years.
Democrats Feel Like They're Talking to a Wall; They're Talking to the Weary.
It is not that these lies weren't countered; they were…by progressives and Democrats…and the few, the brave of commentators. In later years, MSNBC emerged and could be counted on for straight talk. Comedy Central became the "real news" for the young educated for being willing to throw light, albeit hiding behind the built-in denial mechanism of a comic façade, on the inanities of the Wingnuts and Well-Funded.
But that has not been the reality touching the lives of ordinary Americans. What I observed is that the great majority of pundits weren't any help in clarifying things for people. Journalists would say, "Ok, Mr. Democrat, what do you have to say about that?" And The Democrat would respond with a reasoned argument, laying out all these things that made perfect sense if you're familiar with the issue.
And pundits wouldn't delve into their argument, tease out its elements so as to enlighten.
And keep in mind that now more than ever people need that. We have people listening to this who are working two jobs, tired, overworked, worried about their health care, stressed. They're not going to be able to follow an argument very well. In fact they're going to forget what all those words meant and how they all fit together.
So after a while a lot of these folks are going to say…I'm sure you've heard them, they're Republicans and the ones who vote for Republicans…they would say, "Aw geez , that's just a bunch of words, it don't mean anything."
But what the hell does that mean?
Confused People Retreat Into the Stupid.
Well, it means that all these words can't be remembered, they can't take root in their mind after the lies they're always hearing from the other side. They are surrounded by the organized disciplined ongoing assault against them by the Republicans. They are filled up with talking points benefiting the wealthy comprised of simplistic simple-minded irrational mantra…irrational, repetitive, simple slogans.
So, the result is that Democrats don't end up having a lot of power; they don't get elected. I saw it happen in presidential election after presidential election. I saw Reagan saying simplistic things, getting all the people pissed off about poor people and about the Soviets.
From the other side, I heard his appealing to the worst in people countered by reason, by sensible explanations and realistic proposals of a Dukakis, a Carter, and a Mondale. And then at the end it was…. it didn't mean a damn thing. Because people just felt more comfortable around somebody who kept things simple, who said simple words, and seemed angry like they were.
Not that Reagan said anything indicating any of his policies were going to benefit average folks. No, actually he screwed them, but they still liked him! Because Reagan, like other Republicans, are able to confuse people into thinking that any screwing up, of any time, must have been done by Democrats. They will tell you your poverty now is caused by Democratic policies of the past which actually got us out of depressions, recessions, and created surpluses. They will tell you your lousy health care now is caused by money going to the Medicare that you like. They will tell you that the financial squeeze you feel is because of the "penny" going to a poor person not the bundles of loot they are taking.
And Burdened People Become Confused People—That's Their Plan
So, the electorate is swimming in these simple irrational things that have been made to sound reasonable. And they are unable to see through them because they have been kept in this situation of increasing pressure to produce, produce, produce; of less leisure time and no time to think; of worries, medical care, all kinds of things you have to put out money for. They can hardly see through the swindle since they are distracted by the threat to their lives from insurance companies–those folks who may or may not pay you if you need it though you have faithfully paid them.
We'll Insure You, Up to the Time You Need It
It's gotten to the point where you have insurance but you dare not ever make a claim. You live with the risk of unexpected loss to your home at any time that you can not cover, because if you make a claim you may not get it next time. You risk losing home insurance and threatening your home. What the hell kind of insurance is that? You are insured but they can deny you? They can deny your claim, or as it happens all the time, you have one or two claims, and you no longer have an insurance company.
So if your payments are not making them a profit, if you are one of those few who are costing them more to be a member or to be covered by that insurance company, if you're costing them more, they're not going to take it out of the profits of all those who are costing them less, so, you're eliminated. So why do we even have insurance companies? Most people have insurance just in the hope that they'll be covered.
Rational Thought Replaced With Slogans … How Can Anyone Know the Truth?
How Can Folks Unite Against Injustices Hidden From Them
Who has the time to think clearly or reason confronted by all this other uncertainty, this other insanity? So we have all these pressures and then there's these slogans put out and people are not able to follow rational arguments.
How this expresses itself came out in a discussion yesterday on Facebook. One rational type was trying to reason with a supporter of Mitt Romney, who was convinced everyone knew all the "true facts," EVERYONE knew about all the "failed" and horrible things Obama had done…as she'd learned from Glenn Beck among others. My earnest and reasonable friend finally threw in the towel saying, "It's like talking to a random thought generator. What do you think about foreign policy? Cheese."
That is the result of factoids, "obvious truths," replacing reason in burdened and confused minds. So how could these people possibly, without being able to see clearly, how could folks like this ever be united against the REAL injustices against them…which they don't even realize are happening…their minds filled with the fake stuff?
How Can Folks Protect Themselves From "Wizards" Hiding "Behind the Curtain"?
People do not even know who the perpetrators are, for the pundits won't tell them. Folks cannot figure it out for themselves; and the pundits absolutely refuse to point out who's responsible for the things that add misery to their lives.
Media types say they cannot do that because they say it has to do with, something about equal time. But that was supposed to be for elections. And, as I pointed out earlier, equal time turned into something where, no matter what lie is put out there or would be put out, no matter what truth is put out there, the media will find somebody, they could find anybody, who would be willing to say a lie and sound reasonable for the purpose of confusing things.
With all this, how can anybody know what the truth is?
A Rising Tide Lifts All Yachts … The Rich Are Getting Richer and the Workers Are Getting Humiliated
Increasing Humiliation of Working People, the Rich Get Richer at Our Expense
Obvious "Truth":
A rising (economic) tide lifts all boats .
Real Truth – The Rich Get Richer at Our Expense.
Life Has Gotten Harder – Real Truth
So we have this increasing deterioration of our prosperity, of our standard of living, of our joy of life. Life becomes more and more of a struggle, and who benefits? Well we see who benefits. We now have a new super rich class which is above even the very rich. It's called the filthy rich, as I've pointed out.
Real Truth – Our Suffering Has Paid for Even Greater Obscenities by the Wealthy.
And to create this super-rich class where did that money come from? Well, it's come at the cost of average people like us. And I can tell you this because I lived through it all. I'm old enough to have seen the changes. I was born in 1950. I've been there to know, things are much harder than they used to be.
And our rights and our freedoms have changed. Because of their successes in the Culture War/Class War, because of Reagan and Bush, the Patriot Act, the neo-con takeover, and everything, our rights to speak out and to live without harassment have been diluted. Out of all the civilized countries in the world we have the greatest percentage of our people in jails. So what does that say?
Humiliation…Increasing Humiliation of Working People
We have these huge corporations taking over and it's humiliating to people. I mean in times past we had the small retailer, perhaps this person had a small coin shop, bakery, drugstore and pharmacy, shoe shop, maybe a corner grocery store. Now, there aren't any small stores like that. And where does that person end up making a living?
Well, he worked in retail so maybe he even ends up working for the same department store hat pushed him out of business. So what does that do to your self-esteem?
There's example after example of people like that in recent years; it's something that went into high gear under Bush. There are ever more people who are losing their jobs, well paying jobs, because they're being sent overseas; and they are sometimes actually forced to train the people who are taking their jobs.
I can say I feel fortunate to have lived many years in an America quite different from what most people in America being younger than me have been growing up with.
Hippies, Yippies, Yuppies … How the 1% Diluted the Progressive Movement by Slandering Boomers to Foster Culture War Between Them and Gen Xers and to Distract from Their Own Looting
The Yuppies Were Hardly Boomers … But This Idea Supports a Right-Wing Agenda by Pitting Progressives Against Each Other … Try the Red Pill Instead
Yuppies are former hippies.
"Flower children" abandoned their idealism and became greedy careerists focused on money.
Former young radicals saw the error of their ways and became more conservative politically as they got older.
The "Me" Generation is the Sixties Generation
Sixties youth turned from free love and a sexual revolution to conservative sexual values and evangelical religion.
"My Generation" gave up their idealism as everyone does with greater age and maturity.
The Woodstock generation turned from pot and visionary thinking to booze, cocaine, and disco dancing a decade later
The "free love" generation settled down and focused on family and jobs, centered around monogamy.
"My Generation" is currently filling up the suburbs and feverishly maximizing their portfolios, at any and all cost.
Real Truth – All the Above Are Lies … Propaganda to Further the Motives of the 1%, the Filthy Rich
I watched in the early Eighties the lies about a "Me Generation" coming out. Republicans brought that out to beat people down with. The idea was planted that people who wanted anything for themselves were selfish, for after all only the wealthy should ever benefit.
And it's funny too, how they were able to use their own spawn to make this case. You could look around and see a new cadre of young folks—Gen X Yuppies—who had bought into the WWII values, who had been deluded by the untruths the 1% of that WWII generation had been using against the masses. The rich elite had succeeded in convincing those younger of mind that the wealthy folks interests where actually their own.
The 1% of the WWII Generation's response to Sixties activism on campus, as I showed earlier, led to their taking over the universities in the early Seventies and turning them away from the humanities and social sciences and into career mills; I was there and observed it first hand. The success of this is what created the Yuppies in the Eighties–young upwardly mobile professionals–who were the first batch of Generation X—who are those born 1961 to 1981, who therefore left high school beginning in 1978. [Footnote 1]
So these Gen X Yuppies were coming onto the scene in the early Eighties, when the first of them were leaving the universities. The turnaround in education, away from free thinking and towards conservative careerist values, was in full swing by the time they reached college in 1978 on. And its effect on them was patent when they began coming of age. They were what the WWII Generation wanted: money-oriented and compliant…greed had been made "good" again. Standouts of this generation today are Sarah Palin (born 1964), Eric Cantor (born 1963), Rand Paul (born 1963), and Paul Ryan (born 1970).
So then the WWII Generation, fully in charge of society, could point to these yuppie spawn as examples of the obscenity of greed, thus deflecting attention away from their own, WWII Generation, me-spiritedness. To further their ends, they also claimed the origins of this unseemly greed lie in the failed, unrealistic values of the Sixties generation and their idealism.
This was one of their most amazing feats. They were able to take their values of greed and conformity, sow them in another generation, point to those values and criticize them, blame them on the hippies, all the while hiding their own espousal of those values. They perpetrated, denied, criticized, scapegoated, distracted, and obfuscated all together! They thoroughly convinced Americans that the Me Generation and Yuppies were those who formerly were flower children.
Whereas this actual Me Generation, these Yuppies, were predominantly a bunch of reactionary young people who said to hell with this idealistic stuff, and of helping out, and kumbaya, and all that stuff. They said, we're for money, to hell with any one else. And somehow the WWII-Generation-owned media, assisted by a Fifties Generation now in their prime, convinced folks that these careerists out only for themselves were the one-time visionaries. Of course they only pulled this off because they owned or controlled all the major organs of expression in America—the newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, education, book publishing. I've delineated how they did this in one of the earliest all-out assaults, after their initial setbacks in the Sixties, of the Culture War/Class War they have been waging on the 99% since that time.
The media flooded American minds with the idea that the Me Generation was My Generation (I'm "talkin' bout my generation" here) in the Eighties. They had prepared the ground for that lie, as there had been constant slander of my generation in the press since the beginnings of our activism in the Sixties, exactly like they are now putting out against the Millennials and those in the Occupy movement today. Beginning in the Seventies, owning the publishing and media industries, they concocted the lie that there was a conservative backlash going on. (See Chapter Two: Matrix Aroused, the Sixties and The Big Lie About Yuppies Being Hippies.)
This supposed conservative backlash was merely a continuation of Nixon's laughable claim that he was supported by a "Silent Majority," which he had used since the beginnings of his term in 1969 and which was obviously false, as demonstrations grew in size and support swung away from him throughout this period; and eventually he was forced to resign. But Republicans always claim there are a majority of real folks out there—"real Americans" as Palin and her kind say today—who support them but are doing it secretly. (btw, lol!)
Anyway, by the Eighties the powers-that-be were able to place this idea of a selfish "Me Generation" of Sixties youth, which they had been saying for a while, as being the ones on the campus at the time or recently out, the Yuppies. It fit their narrative. But it was a lie, and virtually all my generation knew it and thought it laughable. We stopped laughing after a while as over the years, it became clearer they had done such a good job of preparing the ground and repeating the lie that it stuck in the minds of those other than my generation—the Fifties Generation ahead of us and Gen X behind us—and the right wing, who of course saw this as red meat to further their causes. The media controlled by the 1% said the Sixties generation had gone from idealism to just wanting money, thereby discrediting their opponents, us who were consistently representing the 99%. At the same time they gave credibility to their claim of the superior veracity of their own values of greed, materialism, ruthless pragmatism, ego above all, and even me-spiritedness. Also, it validated, even glorified their personal traits of conformity, hard-headedness, cynicism, compliance, and even mean-spiritedness .
The Lies About Jerry Rubin
They could only give one example, Jerry Rubin; and even about him they lied and slandered. First off, neither Jerry Rubin, or Abbie Hoffman for that matter, were Boomers or Sixties Generation members. They were Fifties Generation, born in 1938 and 1936 respectively. Boomers were born in the post-WWII baby boom from 1946 through 1960. So that is enough to discredit what they said about "my generation." But taking it as an attack aimed at the counterculture, let's examine it:
They said Jerry Rubin was engaged in trying to make money. And they never mentioned what he was trying to make money on… but God forbid anyone but them should try to make money anyway. You see, what the 1% do is drive people into lowered standards of living and poverty where they experience desperation for money at times. Then they can point to that grasping to survive as proof that their values of money above all else are legitimate and that it is not possible for humans to have any other values higher than that. They create the conditions that they can use to support and validate themselves…how convenient.
But telling the whole truth would never allow them to do that. They didn't mention about Jerry Rubin that he was engaged in selling health supplements; he was trying to help people out with their health. He was involved in multilevel marketing. He was an early investor in Apple Corporation, helping to foster the cybernetic revolution that progressives depend on today and which has strengthened our movement incredibly with Facebook and Twitter aiding us in overthrowing dictators in the Mideast and joining us in support of the Occupy and Wisconsin union movements.
He traveled with Abbie Hoffman in doing "Yippie versus Yuppie" debates, that is true. Since it did not fit the narrative of their discrediting their opponents in the Sixties generation, they never understood or at least never mentioned that in using those terms for their "debates" they were continuing their tradition of fucking with their opponents' minds by flaunting the terms that had been used against them. Critics don't get and opponents conveniently overlook the heavily ironic and playful way my generation, and Yippies in particular, present themselves. "Yippie versus Yuppie" is supposed to make you think; it is a hook; and it is funny to those of us in the know. Believe me, I have the same problem with people sometimes misunderstanding my intent for the opposite of what I believe because of the amusingly ironic titles I sometimes give my writings.
But Rubin's position in this "debate"—which was actually a discussion of different ways the Sixties values might succeed, not be overturned—was that the POOR COULD BE HELPED by promoting programs to create wealth in their communities. I quote:
Rubin's argument in the debates was that activism was hard work and that the abuse of drugs, sex, and private property had made the counter-culture "a scary society in itself." He maintained that "wealth creation is the real American revolution. What we need is an infusion of capital into the depressed areas of our country."
Someone who knew him well, Stew Albert, said this of Jerry in eulogizing him.
Jerry was always a rebel, but then he was always a rebel within the rebellion. He was always sort of rebelling against the norms of the rebellion.
Jerry changed costumes, and he changed rhetoric, but he never changed his heart.
Does that sound like someone promoting the interests of the 1%? Or like someone just out for himself, as Yuppies really are? Remember that at the time, militant, even violent revolution had been in the air for a while—with the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, and the Symbionese Liberation Army and such. So "Yippie vs. Yuppie" was a leftist debate about tactics. Today it would be considered a discussion of liberal vs. progressive views…hardly conservative, Yuppie, or Republican views. And Jerry Rubin's putting on a suit made him about as conservative as it made Bob Dylan a conservative when he picked up an electric guitar at the Newport Festival of 1965. Dylan got booed for what was only considered unusual alongside some very high, and strict, expectations about purism in music having nothing to do with political ideology or musical quality but simply technology. Rubin's wearing a suit was the same kind of thing at the time he did it…and it had nothing to do with ideology but simply tactics—i.e., revolutionary technology.
Also, at the same time as Rubin was doing all this and supposedly a Yuppie, he was running a legal and civil rights office in an artsy/alternative part of L.A., Echo Park, where he also lived. When he died he was on his way to dinner in the company of Fred Branfman of the Making a Difference project, whose purpose was to bring money into poor communities by helping inner-city youth learn how to start their own businesses. Does that sound like a Wall Street careerist? Does that sound like he turned over his ideals and bowed to the god of money? So, lies, lies, lies. And these lies become instituted and they're not challenged after a while, after you hear them for decade after decade after decade….
You have to be older to know that it wasn't always the way they tell you it is. It helps to have lived in different times and places and to have seen things with your own eyes to be able to see through these inane "obvious truths" that people take as absolute truths. It helps to have had experience with the things they are talking about to know what are actual facts and what are complete fabrications.
Setting the Record Straight on Boomers
Boomer-Generation X Culture War
A friend who supports the Occupy movement, and who happens to be a Gen Xer, recently shared this with me,
As a Gen Xer, I have to say we were outnumbered as a Generation with half the numbers of the boomers and the previous traditional generations.
…the boomers cut taxes on the wealthy and wages for the middle class to create the world's largest debt, our dependence on dirty foreign oil grew as our manufacturing base got shipped over seas.
You Boomers call Gen X a slacker generation while doing all that?
It is the boomers who are the dead beat generation now.
If this person were correct, then why have the Boomers voted consistently Democratic? [Footnote 2]
The Gen X/Yuppie—Fifties Generation alliance was responsible for getting Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II elected. Boomers voted against Republicans, especially these; it's all in the public record. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II are the ones who did the tax cuts. Whereas Clinton—a Boomer and a Democrat—raised taxes on the 1% and balanced a budget for the first time.
Indeed, all Democratic candidates and Presidents going back to Roosevelt at least, with the one small exception of Kennedy favored and fought for raising taxes on the 1%, not cutting them, so as to relieve the burden on the 99%. The right likes to use Kennedy as an example of a Democrat seeing the wisdom of cutting taxes to improve the economy, but Kennedy's proposed tax cut for the 1% was when the marginal rate was 91% range, not at 35% as today, and the country was prosperous. (See The Myth of JFK as a Supply Side Tax Cutter.) Also it was not instituted until Johnson began his term … which was incidentally when the huge deficits began. So Kennedy's tax cut had nothing at all to do with the prosperity we enjoyed during his term, indeed its institution marked the beginning of increasing deficits.
Even today, it is Democrats—supported heavily by Boomers—who are opposed to tax cuts and favor reining in the greed of the 1%. This includes Obama, who incidentally is a Gen X-Boomer cusper, born 1961. Note that he has surrounded himself with Boomers—Biden, Clinton, et al. And they are engaged in that same Democratic struggle of decades past of trying to get the 1% to pay their fair share in taxes. Meanwhile Republicans supported by that Fifties Generation (the Koch Brothers, John McCain, Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnell, et al) – Gen X/Yuppie (Palin, Cantor, Ryan, Rand Paul) alliance oppose Boomer-Democratic tax and other progressive initiatives at every turn.
So to accuse Boomers, who voted predominantly for these Democrats and their policies, of cutting taxes is grossly misinformed or a lie. And for a Gen Xer to do this blaming is either ignorant, a denial, or delusional…but is in any case a product of that misinformation I've been talking about.
For to address that Gen Xer's charges of Boomer's causing the dependence on dirty foreign oil, the Sixties Generation started the environmental movement. I know a little about this; as I explained previously, I was one of those who helped bring nuclear plant construction to a halt in America, which we did in Springfield, Oregon, in the early Eighties. We, Boomers…I was born in 1950…supported Democrats who fought for environmental legislation, alternative energies, and reduced dependence on dirty energies against Republicans, supported by the Fifties-Gen X alliance, who watered down those policies and legislated a rape of our natural resources and our environment to benefit big business, Big Oil, Big Nuke, Big Coal, and the 1%.
As for the accusation that Boomers sent our manufacturing base overseas and caused a lowering of middle class wages, how can that possibly be true alongside the more than obvious knowledge that Democrats are the ones who consistently push for and favor raising the minimum wage and are the union supporters? Can this OWS person not be aware of the parallel Wisconsin union movement which has Democrats and union folks up against Republicans and Gen X/Fifties Gen Koch-supporters? Or is he somehow unaware of the fact that Boomers have consistently voted in greater numbers for Democrats than Republicans over all these decades? [Footnote 2]
Well, this shows the amount of success the WWII Generation and Fifties Generation enjoyed in shifting the blame for their policies and their theft of the national wealth. And, by the way, it was the WWII Generation that had the greatest retirement wealth per person and who instituted Social Security and other benefit programs for themselves … making themselves the wealthiest as well as the "Greatest Generation." Probably with the tax cuts, the current Fifties Generation who in their retirement years are raping the wealth of the country to fatten themselves, are bettering them. Whereas the Sixties Generation, scapegoated again, is facing cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and other benefits at the exact time as they need it and are facing or entering retirement—being beaten down, harassed, and scapegoated by the Gen X-Fifties Generation alliance again.
You think this is ancient information and is irrelevant to what is happening today? Remember that the comment I quoted above from my Gen X friend and fellow Occupier was from only last week. He has his sights set on my generation as the perpetrators of the problems; these ideas have caused a split between Gen X and Boomer Progressives. I can tell you that his comment is not atypical from others I hear from Gen X in their attitudes toward Boomers.
Similarly, to some extent the Millennials believe Boomers are at fault also—this is what they have been taught. They are simply misinformed and so are not so committed to the lies as the Gen Xers. The Millennials are open to the fact they have been deceived. After all their Boomer parents are models of the fact that these "facts" are actually lies. The Millennials have been made to believe, simply, that their own parents and those of their friends are somehow just different from those "bad Boomers" out there who are really the selfish and tax-cutter ones.
Lies and toxic misinformation are not healthy, at all, for a movement that is predominantly an alliance of Millennials and Boomers, with some Gen Xers (notably, few Fifties Generation folks). After all, how do you think a progressive Boomer feels, after fighting his entire life with his generational cohort for the changes that we are still fighting for with the OWS and Wisconsin union movements, and after hearing his entire life the made up lies, the slander, the scapegoating about himself, his generation, and his beliefs? How do you think she feels seeing those same lies being pulled out again and thrown against OWS supporters, for example, continuing therefore to throw salt into old wounds? And finally how do you think she feels to hear from her friends and allies in the movement that she has been the problem all this time, not the solution? It is disheartening, to say the least.
In this antagonism against Boomers, the other side—the WWII-Fifties Gen alliance, supportive of the 1% and their Tea Party sycophants—have won again. [Footnote 3]
For these WWII-Fifties Gen lies have thrown discord into progressive ranks. And they have thrown off the aim of our movements as to who the perpetrators are, giving the 1% a convenient fog of confusion behind which they can continue unfettered their actions against us.
Finally a most visible example of the right-wing/Republican Fifties Generation – Gen X alliance was shown in the last presidential election with a Fifties Gen, McCain, matched with a Gen X – Palin, born in 1964, coming smack in the middle of the Yuppies (1961 through 1970). This is the generational alliance and the generational values we should be targeting, not Boomers, and Progressives would do better to know that.
The "Truth Dividend" of Having Been Around
So, in understanding what might be the truth and what are obviously lies, it helps to be older, for you can know that it wasn't always the way they tell you it is or has to be. It helps to have lived in different times and places and to have seen things with your own eyes to be able to see through these inane "obvious truths" that people take as absolute truths. It helps to have had experience with the things they are talking about to know what are actual facts and what are complete fabrications.
And with that seeing comes the knowledge that over the course of the last fifty years America descended into a deep slumber of untruth from which it could not awaken…regardless of all the righteous efforts of many true-seeing progressive activists who did their best to sound alarms.
Continue With Culture War, Class War, Chapter Sixteen: The Fall of "Obvious Truths"
Return to Culture War, Class War, Chapter Fourteen: Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago?
The Rise and Fall of "Obvious Truths," Part Three – an Audio Reading by SillyMickel Adzema
Here is an audio of the author's impassioned reading of this part. Though it is of the first, unedited and unpolished version, and it does not contain all the detail of its current form, it does capture the flavor of it all. I offer it here for your listening pleasure. For the reading of this part, "The Rise and Fall of 'Obvious Truths,' Part Three," click on the link to the audio site above or click the link to the audio player below.
http://ecdn0.hark.com/swfs/player.swf?1305835355
1. A lot of confusion about Boomers, Yuppies, And Generation X has been generated by the Census Bureau and main stream media. A generation, see below, is defined as a cohort of people occurring roughly every twenty years who share some common viewpoint and experiences.
This is what a generation actually is:
Defining a generation
Strauss and Howe define a social generation as the aggregate of all people born over a span of roughly twenty years, or about the length of one phase of life: childhood, young adulthood, midlife, and old age. Particular generations are identified (from first birthyear to last) by looking for cohort groups of this length that share three criteria. First, members of a generation share what the authors call an age location in history: they encounter key historical events and social trends while occupying the same phase of life. Because members of a generation are shaped in lasting ways by the eras they encounter as children and young adults, they also tend to share certain common beliefs and behaviors. Aware of the experiences and traits that they share with their peers, members of a generation also tend to share a sense of common perceived membership in that generation.[16] For example, in a 2007 Harvard Institute of Politics survey, Americans born 1982 to 1989 (whom Strauss and Howe define as the first-wave cohorts of the Millennial Generation) identified themselves as belonging to a "unique and distinct" generation, with an outlook different from people in their 30s or older.[17] Surveys show that Boomers also strongly identify with their own age cohort.[18]
Strauss and Howe base their definition of a generation on the work of diverse writers and social thinkers, from ancient writers such as Polybius and Ibn Khaldun to modern social theorists like José Ortega y Gasset, Karl Mannheim, John Stuart Mill, Émile Littré, Auguste Comte, and François Mentré.[19]
From Strauss-Howe generational theory
Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau definition of Boomers is different. See Baby boomer.
Why would it be different? That is the crucial question. The Census Bureau's definitions of Boomers and Generation X is as follows:
The Baby Boom Generation is the generation that was born following World War II, from 1946 up to 1964, a time that was marked by an increase in birth rates.[10] The baby boom has been described variously as a "shockwave"[11] and as "the pig in the python."[12] By the sheer force of its numbers, the boomers were a demographic bulge which remodeled society as it passed through it. In general, baby boomers are associated with a rejection or redefinition of traditional values; however, many commentators have disputed the extent of that rejection, noting the widespread continuity of values with older and younger generations. In Europe and North America boomers are widely associated with privilege, as many grew up in a time of affluence.[11] One of the features of Boomers was that they tended to think of themselves as a special generation, very different from those that had come before them. In the 1960s, as the relatively large numbers of young people became teenagers and young adults, they, and those around them, created a very specific rhetoric around their cohort, and the change they were bringing about.[13]
Generation X (also known as the 13th Generation and the Baby Busters)[14] is the generation generally defined as those born after the baby boom ended from 1965 to 1981. [15] The term generally includes people born during all or part of the 1960s: According to Strauss-Howe generational theory, 1961 is the starting point, though other sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau, consider it to have started in the mid-1960s.[16][17] It ends in late 1970s to early 1980s, usually not later than 1981[18][19][20][21] or 1982.[22][23][15][24] The term has also been used in different times and places for a number of different subcultures or countercultures since the 1950s.[25]
From Generation in Wikipedia.
So why are those born 1961 through 1964 considered part of the Boomer Generation by the Census Bureau, which has informed much of the discussion on this? Why is the Census Bureau attributing only 17 years to Generation X but 19 years to Boomers, when in fact the Boomers were born in a World War II "baby boom" that had them being born in a distinctly shorter period. Whereas Generation X was born of the Fifties Generation during a more languorous, hence longer period? Why is the Census Bureaus including as Boomers those born at those end years of 1961 through 1964 when the number of births was decreasing, not "booming"?
I don't know the answer, but I do know this decision by the Census Bureau has served pundits and right wing commentators in giving more weight to their positions by diluting the distinctly liberal voting record of actual Boomers. As I have been stating above, there was a concerted effort to scapegoat Boomers and to confuse them with Yuppie-Gen Xers. This confused definition by the Census Bureau is part of that. It has allowed pundits to slander the Sixties Generation, as I said, by attributing qualities to them that were actually a part of the WWII Generation's Culture War Attack of creating a generation different from and more compliant than the Sixties Generation/ Boomers.
At any rate, that is why we have the discrepancy shown in this description of the Pew Report findings on "Boomer" voting patterns. Let's look at a few relevant findings:
Of greatest interest to BTS are the Pew Research Center survey findings about Boomers.
In recent years Boomers increasingly call themselves conservatives. They voted for Republican candidates in 2010, but are still on the fence for the 2012 Presidential Election.
Older Boomers tilt Democratic while younger Boomers tilt Republican. When asked to name the best President during their lifetime, Boomers were evenly divided between Clinton and Reagan.
Younger Boomers and Generation Xers have been one of the most reliable Republican voting groups.
From The Baby Boomer Voting Bloc
This supports what I'm saying about generational voting patterns. The difference lies in that this author has to differentiate between late Boomers and early Boomers. They are opposite in their voting patterns. This person wouldn't be so confused if he placed the generational divide where it belongs, at 1961, not 1965. Boomers were born between 1946 and 1960, as shown in the chart below, which also shows Generation X beginning in 1961.
The Boom Generation defined by Howe and Strauss, as shown in the chart above, born 1946 thru 1960 are the ones who vote consistently Democratic. They are the ones who shared common events and experiences growing up and were shaped by them, notably the Vietnam War; the JFK, RFK, and MLK assasinations in 1968; the sexual revolution; the explosion of the use of LSD and pot as drugs, and the counterculture. These events were not on the cultural map that faced the ones born 1961 through 1964, for they were too young. Yet how can one define a Boomer-Sixties Generation that does not include these as formative experiences?
So this discrepancy is an example of what I'm talking about in this article. For it continues the confusion about Boomers and contributes to the scapegoating and the denigration of Boomers as being a Me Generation and Yuppies being former hippies by simply getting confusing results by including some from Gen X—some actual Yuppies. To include those born between the four years, 1961 through 1964, you end up getting the confused results this author gets. You are including the likes of Sarah Palin and Eric Cantor, fer Chrissakes! I've never heard anyone mistake them for my generation. It would have Barack Obama, born 1961, categorized as a Boomer, as if there is not an obvious generational difference between him and some the notable Boomers in his administration, like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. But by seeing that Obama is a Yuppie-Gen Xer, it helps explain the differences between him and the actual Boomer president, Bill Clinton.
For more on this, see Generation Jones, which is the term given for those born 1954 through 1964. They are seen to be very different from the Boomers. They did not confront the same social realities as did Boomers. They even came of age after the Vietnam War. They missed the counterculture movement. It is ludicrous for generationalists to include these with Baby Boomers as especially the second half of these have an entirely opposite world view from Boomers. Their stalwarts include Rick Santorum (born 1958), Sarah Palin (born 1964) and Eric Cantor (born 1963)…hardly Boomers. Notice that it also includes Rand Paul (born 1963), who as expected is the son of a Fifties Generation parent with whom he is allied, Ron Paul (born 1935).
See also the write up on Generation X in Wikipedia, which addresses this confusion as to where the dividing line between Boomers and Gen X is as well.
Finally, see Baby boomer, which discusses this confusion and adds two important considerations: The person who coined the term "baby boomer" described them as those born between 1943 and 1960. So why did the Census Bureau change it? The second point discussed is that many theorists have two distinct generations during this supposed period of Census Bureau Boomers—Boomers and Generation Jones, which are said to be those born 1956 through 1964. So this latter group is not included with Boomers.
Is all this not confusing enough? Does it not play into the right wing agenda to dilute their opponents power by confusing their opponents profile, so they can lob any charge against them? Or attribute any self-congratulatory trait to them, as they wish?
Most of all, this strikes me as devious in that it allows right wingers to blame Boomers for the cadre of youth, the Yuppies, who were actually their creation—that of the 1% and those reactionary culture war forces—and were in no way influenced by, so should hardly be included in, "my generation" of Boomers, the Sixties Generation.
2. BLAM!! From the site, Gallup Politics, of May 8, 2009. Even though continuing the misinformation that Boomers were born up till 1964, going with the Census Bureau definition, Gallup Poll data still solidly support the premise that Boomers are predominantly Democrats, as well as the fact that Millennials are as well.
Democrats Do Best Among Generation Y and Baby Boomers
Republicans do better among Generation X
PRINCETON, NJ — Although Democrats currently enjoy a party identification advantage over Republicans among Americans at every age between 18 to 85, the Democrats' greatest advantages come among those in their 20s and baby boomers in their late 40s and 50s. Republicans, on the other hand, come closest to parity with Democrats among Generation Xers in their late 30s and early 40s and among seniors in their late 60s….
Demographers and social observers have made attempts over the years to classify Americans into generational groups based on the social, political, economic, and cultural environment of the years in which they grew up and "came of age." The most clearly delineated such group is the baby boomers, generally agreed to be those born between 1946 and 1964 — or roughly ages 45 to 63 today. Generation X follows the baby boom and is generally considered to be those born between 1965 and 1979 — or roughly between ages 30 and 44. Those younger than Generation X have been labeled Generation Y or the "Millennials," who are 18 to 29 today. There are various ways of grouping those who preceded the baby boom generation, including the famous sobriquet "The Greatest Generation" used by Tom Brokaw in his book of the same name, but it is convenient to label those who today are 64 and older as seniors (even though some in this group would no doubt resist that label).
From Democrats Do Best Among Generation Y and Baby Boomers.
Notice here that not only are arbitrary birth figures used to stipulate Boomers and Generation Xers, but everyone older than a Boomer is classified as part of the World War Two Generation—"The Greatest Generation." So they would have everyone born in the forty-five year period from 1901 through 1945 to be WWII Gen even though some were born during the war and had their coming of age after the war and in the decade of the Fifties—those born 1925 through 1945. Elsewhere this generation has been termed the Silent Generation or the Eisenhower-Presley-McCarthy Generation…I'm calling them the Fifties Generation for convenience sake. Still, the study does find Democratic tendencies among Boomers, however wrongly defined, and Millennials. And it finds Republican leanings among Generation Xers, however wrongly defined, and the Fifties Generation, however wrongly defined again, as shown by the graph below:
The current data suggest that political party identification in the United States today follows these generational patterns to a perhaps surprising degree.
· Generation Y (18 to 29) clearly is skewed fairly strongly in the direction of being either independent or Democratic in political orientation. This group constitutes a significant weakness for the Republican Party.
· Generation X (30 to 44) includes some of the strongest support for Republicans. For whatever reasons, the Democratic over Republican gap among Generation Xers, particularly those ages 37 to 43 at the heart of this generation, is on a relative basis much closer to parity than for any other age group with the exception of those in their late 60s.
· Baby Boomers (45 to 63) skew Democratic in their political orientation, with the Democratic advantage reaching a peak at ages 58 and 59.
· Seniors have a more mixed pattern of party identification, with Republicans gaining on a relative basis among those in their late 60s, but with Democrats doing better as Americans age into their 70s and early 80s.
Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans today in terms of overall party identification, and the data reviewed here show that this advantage holds at every age between 18 and 85.
At the same time, there are clear ebbs and flows in the degree of this Democratic advantage across the age spectrum. Democrats have the greatest advantage vis a vis Republicans among Americans at the very youngest voting age and also among members of the fabled baby boom, particularly those in their late 50s. Republicans do relatively better among those who are in Generation X, including in particular those in their late 30s and early 40s. Republicans also show greater support among older Americans in their late 60s….
There is…the hypothesis that the differences are explained by the unique circumstances that surrounded the coming of age of the generations. Baby boomers, as is well known, grew up in the tumultuous age of civil rights, Vietnam, Woodstock, and Watergate. It is certainly possible that these events have marked this generation in a more Democratic or liberal direction for life. Many Generation Xers came of age during the Reagan-Bush years (1980 to 1992) or the "Republican Revolution" marked by the 1994 midterm elections. Today's Generation Y has reached maturity in a time period largely marked by the administration of George W. Bush, and certainly for many the nascent Obama administration is a major formative factor in their political orientation….
Now contrast what above is said in the Gallup Poll about Boomers with what is said here about "late Boomers," or who Howe and Strauss and other social scientists would call Generation X, and I would call Gen X-Yuppies:
the 1980-1988 run where young Late Boomers broke heavily for Republicans in the three Presidential landslides of that decade. When that generation grew to political maturity, it resulted in by far the most Republican-identifying generation in over half a century, the 1994 Republican landslide, and the general sense of creeping conservatism the country experienced through the 1990's and first half of our current decade
From The Importance of Generation Y.
The article above also describes the Democratic voting patterns of the Millennials, or what they call Generation Y.
On the idea that the Millennials being the sons and daughters of the Sixties Generation/Boomers, as I continually point out, I offer the following definition of Millennials from WhatIs.com
Millennials, an abbreviation for millennial generation, is a term used by demographers to describe a segment of the population born between 1980 and 2000 (approximately). Sometimes referred to in the media as "Generation Y," millennials are the children of the post-WWII baby boomer generation.
A few things about millennials:
According the U.S. census bureau, around forty percent of the millennial generation is African American, Latino, Asian or of a racially-mixed background.
There are about 76 million millennials in the United States (based on research using the years 1978-2000).
Millennials are the last generation born in the 20th century.
Twenty percent have at least one immigrant parent.
A number of studies, including one by the Center for American Progress, anticipate that millennials will be the first American generation to do less well economically than their parents.
Millennials are also sometimes called the Net generation because (at least according to some people) they don't remember a time when there was no Internet.
As a result of growing up with the Internet and associated devices, millennials are often said to be the most technologically savvy generation to date.
3. There is some scapegoating done by Millennials out of this misinformation. The following was published a few days ago, on June 17, 2012. It is further validation of the antagonism against Boomers regarding the issues of the movement—OWS and Wisconsin union:
The War on Boomers
9/11 and the "war on terror" became part of common jargon. Recently, the "war on women" and the "war on religion" are hot political topics. Now, I'm thinking there is a "war on boomers"….
I was sitting at a reception party table politely nibbling on a too-sweet slice of wedding cake chased with lukewarm burnt coffee when a recent graduate seated at the table started whining about how unfairly life was treating him. First, he believed that four years of (sheltered) college life entitled him to a first-class ticket to affluence with a side-trip on a guaranteed career path. And, now there were no job tickets to be had and (worse) he was expected to pay back all the money he borrowed to get in on this total sham. Life was so unfair! His debt should be forgiven – because it was only fair to be compensated for this bait-and-switch.
He continued his tirade. Boomers should be retiring to make room for all the recent grads that deserve jobs now. It's only right. On top of this, these boomers with all of their massive wealth were actually going to bankrupt Social Security – a heartless action since they don't actually need it. The injustices just keep piling for the new graduates with their superior skills and up-to-date knowledge. Down the road he had nothing to look forward to — once he finally got that plum job that he had a right to based on his attendance at an institution of higher learning – except huge national debt and no Social Security or Medicare, an unwanted and unwarranted gift from self-centered boomers.
And, now I'm starting to pay attention to what seemed idle conversation. I glance at the Count who gives me a look that says, "Don't go there –– please!" I concentrate on my cake that is now too dry to choke down without more lukewarm burnt coffee; and wonder if Clueless thinks those seated at the table are in our 30s (or perhaps our 80s!) and am amazed at how he can find it acceptable to disparage all boomers while sitting among them. Generously, I wonder if maybe he just has a sarcastic sense of humor. However, Clueless continues. I smolder some and then catch the Count's glance again. He slyly places his thumb and first finger on either side of his mouth pulling a smile into place – and I reluctantly accept his wisdom. But, the Count did get an earful on the way home.
I think about Julie, a single mother, who helped two kids through college while working 40 hours per work as an administrative assistant, selling Avon after work hours, and running a food concession stand at weekend events during the summer. Julie has little in her nest-egg, but her children do have a chance at the American dream – although it will always require some effort.
I suspect that John, another co-worker, was on track to fund his retirement. Unfortunately, at about the same time the 2008 financial crisis cratered his retirement savings his father was diagnosed with Alzheimers. John knew he should avoid using his tax-deferred savings at the bottom of the financial market, but his father's healthcare bills had to be paid. John's plan to retire at 62 is a dream lost to reality.
I bumped into Mary Beth at the greenhouse when we were buying our bedding plants. She pointed us to the "spikes" that the Count insists on adding to the geranium-filled pots on the patio. As we caught up on gossip about former neighbors, she confided that plants have always been her hobby and that this "green" job was perfect. This temporary part-time job was crucial to replacing the family income lost when Jerry was laid off from his welding job – months ago. And, she laughed when she acknowledged that, in fact, "work" was a respite from a house now over-crowded since her daughter and family are living in the basement. I'm pretty certain that Jerry and Mary Beth — both boomers, planners, and savers – no longer have the luxury of maximizing their tax-deferred retirement savings accounts (or even the ability to set aside savings) as they approach the age they used to believe would be the end of their full-time working careers.
With investment portfolios and home values shrinking, medical expenses and LTC costs rising, financial worries for some boomers are dire.
A May 2010 Pew Research survey found that 60% of Americans age 50 to 61 believe they may need to delay retirement because of the recession. Plus, the highest percentage of any generation, 57% of boomers, said that their household finances have deteriorated in the past few years.
In 2010 the ERBI reported that only 13% of workers age 55 or older are "very confident" that have enough money to live comfortably in retirement.
Some have labeled the boomer generation the "sandwich generation", a group dealing with healthcare issues of their elderly parents at the same time they are backstopping the impact of the stagnant economy on their boomerang grown children.
Aiming fingers and lobbing blame doesn't solve anything. We are all in this together since our generations are linked in complex ways. We are all fighting the same war of financial and economic uncertainty, just not at on the same battlefield – as determined by our stage of life. A war on anyone does nothing but divide us – when the ultimate victory is prosperity for everyone.
From The War on Boomers
Posted in audio, authenticity, being yourself, Consciousness, Environmentalism, nonconform, Politics, Psychology, Spirituality
Tags: 1%, 60s, 70s, 99%, Abbie Hoffman, activism, Al Gore, Alan Grayson, america, american, American way, Americans, art, baby-boomer, Bachmann, backlash, balance, balance budgets, Bernie Sanders, Biden, big government, Bill Clinton, billionaire, Black Panther, Bob Dylan, boomer, budget, Bush, business, campus, carter, Chase, class, class war, class warfare, clinton, comfort, commentator, compliance, conformity, confused, conservative, corner grocery store, corporation, counterculture, creative sector, CULTURE, culture war, current-events, democrat, Democratic, democrats, democrats republicans, Dick Cheney, diminishing marginal returns, disco, dukakis, economic, economic tide, economics, economy, Eighties, election, employment, Environment, Environmentalism, equal time, Eric Cantor, evangelical religion, expense, FDA, Fifties, filthy rich, fiscally responsible, flower children, foolish, Fred Branfman, free love, Gen X, generation, generation x, glenn beck, globalrevolution, Goldman Sachs, gop, government, Great Depression, greed, health care, health insurance, hippie, idealism, incarceration, invest, iraq, ironic, irrational, jails, Jerry Rubin, job creation, job creators, jobs, John McCain, Johnson, Jon Stewart, journalist, Kennedy, koch, kumbaya, liars, liberal, lie, liep, lies, life, living, mad, madness, matrix, me generation, me-spiritedness, mean-spiritedness, Medi99care, media, medicare, middle class, Millennials, millionaire, mind, misinformation, Mondale, money, money madness, movement, MSNBC, my generation, National Debt, neo-con, nonconform, nuclear, Obama, obvious truth, obvious truths, occupy, occupy wall street, Patriot Act, Paul Ryan, people, plutocracy, politics, poor, poverty, presidential race, progressive, progressives, propaganda, prosperity, psychology, pundit, Rachel Maddow, Rand Paul, reactionary, reagan, real, real American, real truths, rebel, rebellion, red pill, republicans, revolution, rich, rich elite, richer, right-wing, rising tide, roosevelt, sanity, sarah palin, scapegoat, selfish, Seventies, sexual revolution, silent majority, sixties, slander, slogans, small business, small businesses, smallbusiness, social security, society, spend, squander, standard of living, starve the beast, struggle, stupid, stupidity, surplus, talking points, tax, tax and spend, tax cut, tax cuts, tax proposal, Taxed Enough Already, taxes, tea party, toxic, truth, union, uniqueness, university, untruths, W, Walmart, wealth creators, wealthy, Weather Underground, wisconsin, wizard of oz, worker, World War II Generation, WWII, yacht, yachts, Yippie, young radical, young radicals, Yuppie
Foolin' the People About America … It's About Creeping Corporate Insertion Into Every Aspect of Your Life. Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago?
Peaking in the Sixties, Starving for Prosperity, The Compassion Gap, Starving the "Beast," Humbug for the Poor, Democratizing the Hate … Your Money or Your Life
Culture War, Class War, Chapter Fourteen: Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago?
Peaking in the Sixties
Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago? Part One: Peaking in the Sixties
Americans are innovators and problem-solvers.
There's nothing Americans can't do, no problem we can't solve, once we put our minds to it.
Things just keep getting better in America
Republicans are for small business.
So unfortunately, after Reagan instituted "voodoo economics," with prices on health care and pharmaceuticals going through the roof along with the sudden unexpected increases of other necessities of life, you had that lowered standard of living we have now become accustomed to for the great majority of Americans. You had a population that was poorer, in relative terms, and got increasingly poorer.
Over time, over the course of my lifetime, though we might ostensibly have appeared to prosper we did not. The apparent rise in standard of living was a result of the glut of new consumer items produced in an increasingly technological and complex culture. You might be able to afford plenty of cheap trinkets and toys, but for things that pertained to your well-being and quality of life, such as health and medical care, good schools, wholesome food, higher educational opportunities, a clean environment, recreational opportunities, fuel and energy, leisure, family, and quality time, and so on we were ever more wanting.
In retrospect I can see we prospered in the Fifties and Sixties. The records show that Americans achieved a peak of affluence in the Sixties and that since then, and rapidly accelerating since the Eighties, we have been on a downward slide.
Poor Mothers Could Afford to Stay Home and Take Care of the Kids.
I can see the ways we, living in the Fifties and Sixties, were as a culture fairly well off, though personally my circumstances were anything but that. My father made only fifty dollars a week for a time. But my mother never had to go to work. She actually did get a part-time job much later in life for the enjoyment of it. Can anyone today imagine that?
How Much for That House? Ok, Let Me Get My Wallet.
My father never made over a hundred dollars a week until later in his life he actually started his own small trucking outfit…that's another story about who are the real job creators in America that I get into elsewhere. Yet he bought his home with cash he had saved up. Eight thousand dollars smack on the barrelhead in 1953. He never had to work three jobs to get by either, like some folks have to today. No mortgage on his house and he bought every car he owned—roughly once every five years—also with cash he had saved.
College Educations for Free in the Sixties and Seventies. #occupycollege today
No loans, never in debt and yet five of his six children attended at least some college and two attained at least Master's degrees. I was talking with my older brother about his college education, which mirrored my own, and we both remember getting by with very little or no debt afterward. We both received enough to cover all college plus living expenses most years just on scholarships and grants—mostly state and federally funded—yet we both attended private, somewhat prestigious, colleges.
I know, millennial generation, but don't blame us, we're on your side. #occupycollege.
What's Health Insurance?
My family didn't have any health insurance, had never even heard of it. We were not well off, but we like most people could afford to go to the doctor. And similar to others we could even normally pay hospital bills, for maternity and so on. If anything very serious developed that required more money no one ever imagined that they would be turned away at a hospital. The Mercy Hospital in my city, run by a religious order of Catholic nuns and funded by contributions, was a place one could always go regardless of one's means. Sounds unbelievably quaint, doesn't it? I know. I can hardly believe it was once that way myself.
Starving for Prosperity
Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago? Part Two: Starving for Prosperity
Foolin' the People About America
Obvious "Truths"
There is an abundance of food in America
There is a huge problem with obesity in America because folks actually have too much to eat.
People are overweight because they eat too much.
"Have Some More, There's Plenty!"
And my family never starved back in the Fifties and Sixties. The dinner refrain was "Have some more, there's plenty." Though we were fairly poor by the standards of that time, I never, ever, ever imagined there being a lack of or limitation on food. There were big restrictions on sweet treats and goodies, but not on wholesome food. So it shocks me to see how much more concerned parents are today about how much their children will eat, as well as how precisely they mete out their gustatory offerings when entertaining.
"You're Not Leaving This Table till You've Eaten All Your … Ketchup."
When not long ago I worked in a group home for troubled boys I was shocked and distressed to see the controversies over the food portions given and the restrictions on when they could eat. This was a government-funded group home and had to abide by all kinds of minimal standards in nutrition. Still, ever since Reagan determined that ketchup qualified as a vegetable serving, I have noticed this public stinginess about food.
Where I worked, sugared-water drinks qualified as juice, and peanut butter consumption was limited to a thin layer like that of butter that's spread on bread. Cheap sugar this and thats and nutrient-low, colon-clogging baked goods, noodle dishes, and pizza were the at-hand substitutes for wholesome, more substantial offerings. The resulting blood-sugar swings and erratic, aggressive behavior were handled with drugs and listed within their case histories.
"Please, Sir, Some More?"
There was much more like this but suffice it to say that I could hardly believe the happenings in this Oliver Twist world. My heart went out to those young boys who in this once wealthy land and still surrounded by plenty in this post-millennial, rich suburban California stood near the kitchen with plate in hand, their eyes pleading if they might "please have some more."
This miserliness about food seems a prevalent thing throughout the culture as it is evident in school lunch programs also. Whereas at the grammar and secondary schools I attended while growing up I enjoyed complete wholesome meals on a par with and sometimes surpassing the enjoyable repasts at home and even seconds were allowed, what is considered a decent school lunch today is shocking. Corporations have taken over as suppliers. Can you believe we had a Joe the Cook in grade school who concocted home-style offerings, which were ladled out by those of our mothers, including my own, who had volunteered?
The Beloved School Cook–Pepsico
Today the school meals are akin to that in fast food restaurants and just as monotonous … pizza, chicken nuggets, spaghetti, greasy burgers, hot dogs, fries. They are not "cooked." From what I understand, they are taken from freezers, popped in microwaves, and dealt out to pupils like one would cards. The epidemics of obesity and diabetes in our country attest to how much worse is the nutrition for young folks today.
Aren't America's "Extermination Policies" Just More Undetectable Than Nazi Germany's? Starving the "Beast"—That Means You: Your Money or Your Life
Foolin' the People About America. Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago? Part Three: Starving the "Beast"
Your Medical Payment or Your Life
What else is different now than fifty years ago? Well, there's people who can't pay for health care… can't get health care? …. Now that's something new for me too. Can't get health care. Wow. You mean you're sick, you're gonna die, but you can't get help in the medical system? Unbelievable. That used to be unheard of.
I know. You're thinking, "But we passed universal health care in recent years." Remember though, we passed universal health care "coverage" … not care. Everyone has to be insured does not mean everyone gets taken care of.
At any rate, none of this "universal health care" has "trickled down" to the very needy as far as I can tell. Now, I don't know if folks are being turned away from hospitals like they were before it was passed. Folks got refused care for lack of coverage in recent decades. And sometimes they died. (I wonder how many others died while struggling to fill out the forms to apply for health care for the needy? *sarcasm*)
Regardless, health care that is delayed, rationed out, or cut back and denied for certain conditions can be just as much a death sentence as being turned away at a hospital door. Example? After we passed "universal" coverage Governor Jane Brewer of Arizona allowed a change in policy in their state-funded health care to deny organ transplants to those folks who could not afford it otherwise. These were organ transplants needed to save their lives. These people would have received them under some other coverage, but falling through the cracks and being poor—some of them born too disabled to be able to work at a job—they were essentially told, "We can't afford to keep you alive (we've got tax cuts for the rich to pay for)." So they did. They died. Republicans clamored about "death panels" beforehand; then promptly implemented one as soon as they could.
Isn't this the kind of health care the opponents of "socialized medicine" say we would get if we went to single-payer? Well, we've got it folks—delays, rationing, denials, complications … and stress!—without any of the benefits of "socialized medicine." I've watched it take two weeks to get a prescription in Riverside County, California, when it should have taken 45 minutes or less. The folks there handling health care for people who include poor folks on Medi-Cal are so overworked and stretched thin that you need to stand in line, literally stand in line for sometimes four hours or more to get a prescription filled. Think I'm exaggerating? I'm aware of at least one elderly gentleman who collapsed while waiting and was removed on a stretcher. I felt like I was in a scene from the movie Soylent Green, wondering where they were taking this one who had fallen by the wayside.
And the answer is no. No to the other question in your mind: "Don't they have places you can sit down?" I know of no other place where you have to stand to get your prescription, you're REQUIRED to stand. But then this is a huge county hospital catering to the poor. It handles many poor people…and it does it poorly. The unwritten rule is, "You're asking for health care at a discount!? Well, WE'LL MAKE YOU PAY…ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, DAMN YOU!"
Starve the "Beast"
You don't think this attitude trickles down to the masses from policy on high? Well, you tell me what the policy makers of the 1% are thinking when they say they are going to "starve the beast" of government … continually cut back funds for government services…as a back door way of making government smaller. This is the exact wording they have used, since Reagan, for their policies of tax cuts for the rich that require massive spending cuts on services for poor and middle income folks.
But think now: Just who do they imagine is really that "beast"? And why use the word, "starve"? Yes, the "beast" of the masses, the riff-raff, is being "starved"—being made to suffer for lack of sufficient money for systems and workers so folks can be served faster. With money stretched thin for humane processing systems and employees to implement them, people are refuse…"beasts"…having to stand and suffer.
I wonder how this is not simply a more undetectable way of eliminating in America the handicapped, disabled, and/or mentally challenged than the way the Nazis did it to the same sort of "riff raff" when they got to power during the time of the Third Reich.
Universal Health Care in America? Don't Make Me Laugh… You Get an "Assumed Doctor" and Like it or You Choose to Die.
Foolin' the People About America. Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago? Part Four: But Do You Get a Doctor?
And Do You Get a Doctor?
Do you get a doctor, though? Not in this decade you don't. When I was a child we went to the doctor's office and paid $7 for a doctor's visit. Even on my Dad's $50 a week, that was affordable; and that was the least he made. When you now have doctor's visits that cost a hundred to three hundred dollars if you pay out of pocket (or more), do you realize how much you'd have to make for it to be as affordable as it was for my Dad? Figure $700 to 2 to 3 thousand a week. Some people make that nowadays, but not the poor. Remember, my father was dirt poor, getting by on $50 a week with six kids.
House Calls in the Past; "Pretend" Doctors Today
But we got to see a real doctor. We even got a doctor who made house calls. Today? Well you get a pretend doctor who confers, along with a gaggle of other pretend doctors, with an actual physician, then gets back to you as you wait…and wait some more.
And You Wait
Recently, it took four hours for the visit and another four hours to get the prescriptions at the same hospital in another place…and the prescriptions didn't all come through until after two weeks and a number of phone calls, as at one point they had to order a common prescription and then lost the order (had no record that it had ever been made; though on several phone calls they referred to it) and had to make it again. And this experience has been common. I've experienced it a number of times. I'm trying to acquire health care elsewhere, believe me.
You Get an "Assumed" Doctor
Did I get a doctor? No. Oh, they call themselves doctors. The last one was more honest and announced when he came in that he was so and so who was a "student doctor." I didn't hear him correctly. My mind scanned thousands of files in an instant and what it came up with I just had to ask. I said, "Did you say you are an 'assumed doctor'"?
And being "processed" like a piece of meat this way, you get a different "assumed doctor" every time. There is no continuity. You don't bother to keep track of their names, for it doesn't matter. You start all over on every visit. The only thing they know of you is what has been electronically recorded from previous visits; nothing human or relational is carried forward. They will tell you it is because all the "assumed doctors" are equally competent and qualified, so it doesn't matter. Of course that is a rationalization for a system so "starved" of funding the personal touch has long ago been squeezed out in favor of assembly-line efficiency.
Or You Choose to Die
So what is the upshot of all this. It is that many folks have to weigh getting health care in America—which is claimed to be "available"—against the complications and time of getting it. I don't have a job, so I was able to persevere. What of folks who have to work full time or more? I was well enough to stand around and coherent enough to make notes and make phone calls. What of folks who are sicker than that?
The Unspoken Costs of Health Care
The upshot is that many folks are weighing THESE costs of health care when choosing whether or not to seek help. And their decision is leaving many of these folks dead. I know of a number of people who have made such a decision; many of you also do.
Some Are Choosing a "Soylent Green" Escape
I know of one instance where it was even done consciously, for the person did not want to spend what might be her last time on Earth struggling with an insensitive and mean-spirited medical system, so she just opted to let her cancer take her in the serenity of her home and surrounded by loved ones. (Why am I thinking of that movie Soylent Green again? Well, maybe you remember that scene as well.)
Others Are Risking It
I know I myself weigh these costs in time and suffering and inconvenience whenever I feel I might need to be looked at for something. And very often…most of the time actually…I put off being looked at. I postpone doing tests that are made more time consuming and painful for poor folks (don't get me started on that); and I often give up in pursuing the treatments and medications that I am prescribed…figuring that putting up with the suffering of the ailment is better than the suffering incurred in its cure. And I am not alone. Will it cost me my life? Perhaps.
Universal health care in America? Don't make me laugh..
America—Best Health Care in the World
…Before Them
Now, compare all this with the way it was fifty years ago. A friend of mine on Facebook shared how her brother was treated when he had a life threatening injury. This was that long ago and she relates they were poor. She says, they flew in a specialist from Australia to perform the delicate operation. I repeat, they were poor. But then this was all before Reagan…and Nixon. I'm getting to that.
With the Excuse of "The Game," Small-Hearted Folks Can Now Flaunt Their Mean-Spiritedness – The Compassion Gap
"Stop War? Now, Don't Go Gettin' All Kumbaya on Me!" … Foolin' the People About America. Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago? Part Five: The Compassion Gap
So what happened to our country? We were supposed to be a country that valued human life, for example, but is now valuing contract law over that.
The Word's More Important Than The Life
So the word has become more important than the person, and better that people sleep in the gutters or lie out in the park than to lend them a hand. And god forbid when you have children, that one of them get sick, someone have an accident, or someone get killed….
Rules (Made Up to Benefit the Wealthy) Are Now More Important Than Life
Goddamn it. Y'know, here you've got Rick Santelli saying, well they must have put in a kitchen or else they wouldn't have gotten foreclosed on. Where does he get that? That's not a fact. That's a made up thing, just to get people angry.
And that's the game. A game that's not founded on any facts, only played to be won, and it's won by making the best argument to arouse the most passions, the most negative passions in people, and to find scapegoats.
Stop War? Don't Be Silly.
And this is the kind of thing that was brought up year after year over the decades to the point where it became that the things that I heard being valued growing up were laughable: compassion, if you were caring about people, or not wanting people to die.
Say, there was a war or something and there was agony over the loss of life. And all these people would gather together out of their concern. I'm sure you've heard about it. People anguished and horrified by other people's deaths and sufferings…reaching out to help them, help each other, comfort each other, pray together…hope…weep.
Oh My Lord, Kumbaya.
Yea, a great big kumbaya moment! Wow. And I'm sure that's what you heard, too. So I get it. Ok, so you shouldn't have any feelings toward your fellow suffering brother or sister. Is it, what, silly? Uncool? Weak? Wussy? Sappy? What?
What is it you're trying to prove to others with that?
What is it you're hiding about yourself?
… What would Jesus have said to that…
It seems more than the standard of living was lowered since those days. And I'm sure they are in many ways connected…. I'll get into that later.
Health Not-Care: Democratizing the Hate, Humbug for the Poor, and The Middle Class Is the Last Bastion of Who You Can Give a Damn About
Foolin' the People About America…The Middle Class Is the Last Bastion of Who You Can Give a Damn About. Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago? Part Six: Health Not-Care
Getting back to the change in the physical standard of living that Reagan wrought, though, let's take for example the increase in health care costs. This is one of the necessities of life, and it's been climbing out of reach, putting a burden on people, ok? …
Humbug for the Poor
As I explained in Part Two of "Obvious Truths," Nixon addressed that problem in the Seventies. He was supposedly helping out the people, the poor…. Uh. But, no, he would never say that. He would never say he wanted to help the poor! Previous to him, in Johnson's time…The Great Society and all that, yes. That was surely a time when you would hear talk like that. There was actually a War on Poverty then.
But by the time of Nixon….
So, I guess that's when it started happening.
You couldn't say you were actually going to help out the poor anymore. Because the truism, which I'm sure you all agree with, whether you admit it to yourself or not, is that the poor people deserve to be punished because obviously they're lazy. Think about that; isn't that the same stuff that, back in the day, they were saying about African Americans? …
Democratizing the Hate
So isn't it kind of like that racism has become classism? It's kind of like a hatred that's not been eliminated because they're still saying that about people of color, but it's been expanded. It includes more people–whites and blacks…and all other kinds of colors. All the poor, they're all now lazy, deserving what they get.
The Middle Class–The Last Bastion of Who You Can Give a Damn About
So instead what you hear today is like the "middle class"! Well, supposedly the middle class are ok people. They're not deadbeats; they didn't put in that kitchen they can't afford…. Actually they're the ones who are owning homes so some of them actually are the ones getting those new kitchens.
Health Not-Care
Nixon Cared About Health…Healthy Profits.
So Nixon's answer to health care, to help the middle class, he started the move toward HMOs. And remember how it came about. There were actual White House tapes, an actual taped phone conversation of it. You hear Nixon talking to Ehrlichmann. And they are discussing the matter, health care. Nixon is told that Kaiser, and this is the guy who started Kaiser Permanente, one of the top HMOs. He is told that Edgar Kaiser is proposing a "for profit" system of health care.
Now here we have people who can't afford health care and now you want to have a system that's going to add to the costs of it. How's that you say?
Some People Just Wanting to Get Sick Again and Again!
You say HMOs lower health care costs by reducing overhead? Maybe, but to all necessary costs that are already there, HMOs add the cost of profits to go to the owners of that health care system. Ok?
Also, Kaiser pointed out it would discourage "overuse" of medical treatment. Wow! So, here we go again.
So now we see that people who need medical treatment are just like those deadbeats, they're like poor people, they're overusing medical care. My god! They're getting sick too much. And if you had a for-profit system, well, they could deny people coverage. And they could deny people medical treatment, no doubt, because they would naturally want to increase their profits.
GOP-Think. GOP, Think! GOP…Think?
So guess what? So, Nixon replied, "Well, now that I like." This is a true story. So this is a look into how Republicans think.
Well not long afterwards, Nixon gives a speech to present his sweeping new health care proposal. What does he say?
Remember, there is this obvious disdain for certain groups of people who might be getting too much health care. On the other hand, Nixon is wanting to see that certain other groups of people will make out big time from profits that will be involved.
But his speech doesn't go like that. Nixon is recorded giving a speech, proposing a big solution, purportedly to answer the problem of the rising health care costs that are beginning to be felt at that time. He will emphasize that his proposal would be a great benefit to the middle class. [Footnote 1]
Make It to the Middle Base and You Score.
Keep in mind as I was saying in Part Two, there was a time in which influential groups would consider they "had a home run" when they could make a case that their proposal was going to benefit the American people. But by this point, because of the culture war and mean-spiritedness being stirred up in the country by Republicans, it had become necessary to single out the middle class as the only ones receiving the benefit, because, y'know, poor people…they're not Americans.
Thanks for Those Health Care Savings, Dick! Nixon's Big Idea: HMOs … for One-Stop Larceny
Foolin' the People About America…"Thanks for the Health Care Savings, Dick!" Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago? Part Seven: Hit Men for the HMOs
Foolin' the People About America: Nixon's Big Idea—HMOs
Thanks for the Health Care Savings, Dick.
So Nixon says he is going to lower health care costs. Well, you can see how right he was about that. Just look at Michael Moore's movie on American's health care system if you can handle knowing how bad it got. The documentary, "Sicko," lays out in brutal detail how devastating it was to inject the profit motive into health care.
"I Was a Hit-Man for the HMO."
There is one especially disturbing example of this. A former employee of a huge HMO testified before Congress. Crying and tearful she related how she was rewarded for denying an operation that would have saved a man's life. It would have cost the HMO a half million dollars. Instead, he died; they increased their profits.
In another situation an HMO employee received bonuses upwards of $20,000 for cancelling coverage on people who were costing the insurer a lot of money. She cancelled hundreds of policies, including for those who were scheduled for life-saving procedures. In one "particularly good" year for this person, she saved her employer $6 million. I don't know offhand how many folks died in exchange for her dutiful and lucrative actions and am not sure I want to. This is hard to look at, isn't it?
The upshot is these HMO-persons were rewarded for taking people's lives; and they are in no way untypical. Linda Peeno, the physician who testified before Congress, admitted as much; she admitted her action amounted to a murder, for which she should have been charged but wasn't. She pointed out how perverse it was that instead the system rained rewards up her. Now you show me the moral dividing line between theses actions of professionals of the HMO and "professional" assassins…mafia hit men. For I don't see it.
Pay Us Now. We'll Think About Covering You Later.
Now you might argue that saving money on costly care means there would be more help for others.
But, no. That's not the rationale. That's another part of it. They can deny health care on any basis. They can deny it on any basis but they went out and they found more ways to make even greater profits. If you were going to cost them a lot of money, if what you needed to live was medical treatment that they might consider too expensive, well what they would sometimes do is hire people to look into you. These people would be paid to research your background, to see if they could find something that could be used as an excuse to deny your costly procedures to you.
Michael Moore records in his documentary at least one such researcher who explains, with remorse, what he had been paid to do and how he would go about it. He, and people like him, would pore over your records to look for something, even slight, that they could hang a denial of coverage on. They would in particular look into your childhood for any care that they could say indicated the presence of a medical condition for you at that time.
When they found something, they would be able to say that you had a pre-existing condition and so they were not liable for your care now. They would claim that you lied on your application in not listing such an ongoing ailment so that they could drop you from coverage and let you die.
So people were being left to die, killed in this manner. Does this not amount to more "hits" put out on people by the HMO?
Buuuut It's Contract Law!!
Did You, At Any Point in the Past, Pre-exist This Application?
Buuut it's contract law! …dollar laid, dollar played, y'know. And it's contract law that is stretched to benefit the people with the most money and who have the better lawyers and who can, y'know, twist things better in their favor. Here you have a situation, where, let's say, somebody is dying and they're dying of emphysema. I don't know enough about medicine to know if that would be the kind of thing that could entail very costly care, but let's just say it did. So this person very ill with emphysema might be informed that it had been discovered, let's say, that they had a bronchial condition as a child…maybe to them, they were prone to get colds. But they would make the determination that your frequent colds shows a preexisting condition for you. Now you tell me how a person who is dying is going to be able to fight that.
Over Your Dead Body Getting Paid
We've all heard Obama's story about his mother and what she had to go through prior to her death. She spent the last months of her life arguing with the medical insurers over the bills. She was being told they didn't have to cover her. Are those the kind of final days you would want for a loved one of yours? How does that prospect fit your own view of your last days?
One-Stop Larceny
Getting back to Nixon, at the time of his health care proposal he said huge managed care systems, which he touted as being one-stop medical systems, were going to lower health care costs. This was so, he claimed, because cost sharing and lower overhead would rein in the price of providing medical care. He said these lower expenses would benefit the whole system.
Apparently he forgot to mention the for-profit part, which ended up funneling all those benefits, those lower expenses, into the pockets of the owners and shareholders. That is what happens when you put profit-hungry businessmen in charge of care. Gradually, America's medical needs were primarily the purview of business, big business.
Remember, again, that the health care law that went into effect under Obama was to make sure everyone would receive coverage, not health care. It remains to be seen how effective this health care reform will be in reducing these sorts of abuses by insurers. No doubt it is better than what existed before. But it leaves intact the profit motive in American health care. So any regulation and prohibitions of abuses are likely to amount to tying down a ravenous beast with bungee cords. It is hard to believe this monster created by Nixon will not break free whenever it can and wreak much havoc before being stopped again…but again with piles of dead Americans in its wake.
You Mean You Care…And You're Not Paid To?? (Oh, Kumbaya.)
Previous to all this with big business put in charge of the life or death decisions of Americans, much of what was involved in caring for the sick had been attended to by religious and charitable organizations. These concerned social institutions might be dedicated to idealistic or religious principles, for example, which included compassion and caring for the sick as one of their values or one of their religious ideals. So, much of health care had been in the hands of charitable entities and people dedicated to the idea of service, caring for the sick, getting them well, caring for your fellow person, your fellow man or woman, and so on; naturally the type of care you received was infused with such ideals.
But with Nixon all that changed. And Nixon loved it.
Corporations Crowding Out the Mom and Pops … HMOs Driving Out the Private Physician, It's the Same Old Monopoly Game
Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago? Part Eight: The Monopoly Game Again…It's About Creeping Corporate Insertion Into Every Aspect of Your Life.
The Monopoly Game Again: HMOs Drove Out Private Physicians
So then also, these businessmen with their HMOs are having near monopolies; they're the only HMO providing health care in many areas. The only alternative is privately paid physicians. And these medical providers have costs that have have gone up because of their reduced client base, their patients having been siphoned off by the HMO.
"Buy One Appendectomy, Get a Second One for a Dollar!"
So private care physicians have the same overhead, and now they've got less clientele. In addition to that, now with their making less money and having higher costs, they also have extra costs, of competition, advertising for the first time.
"I Need to Take Two Aspirin…I'll Call YOU in the morning."
But that's only one of the many costs that occur in a situation where you have a small market, with the same number of providers. You have a scrambling with other private small medical practitioners over a smaller pile, which increases not only the competitive costs involved in having to put oneself out there to win clients from competitors and thus further increases the cost of private care, it also increased pressures and tensions on private physicians who now are required to have two jobs. They have to be medical provider and business person. They have to work longer hours because of this too.
Of course you can imagine what a boon this was for medical care in our country. Now you not only have to pay more for private care but also compared to not so long ago it is being increasingly performed by angry, stressed, tense, overworked, underslept professionals. Well what happens when you've got those kind of people providing you medical care on the private side?
So, on the one side–the mega-care side, you have them denying you medical care even if you've paid. You've got them denying you coverage if you have anything wrong, or if you've ever had anything in your life and you admit it. You either don't get covered at all, or you may have paid premiums for years but when you get sick you don't get treated so you die.
"Take Two Aspirin and Call Me After Tax Time."
On the other hand, you can pay the higher costs for private care out of your pocket. And these people are overworked, spending much of their time trying to drum up business and trying to take care of all the increasing paperwork of a competitive business enterprise and that of an ever increasing number of payers. So they're making more mistakes.
And more mistakes equal what? More mistakes in medicine means more people dying, by mistake, or having the wrong procedure done, or having the wrong limb removed. The extra stress will push some physicians to "operate under the influence" of alcohol or the readily available prescription mood drugs glutting the market.
You get the idea that things may have been getting worse over the years in a lot of areas?
So with all the extra pressure on medical practitioners, we begin to hear more and more about malpractice. So, another cost is introduced. And medical malpractice insurance for physicians has ever increasing premiums. This adds even more to the price of private care.
The Kind of Care That Increases Suffering
So you can see that the suffering of the masses, in both health care systems, is going up. As for the doctors themselves, well now they're either out of business because they made a mistake or they're keeping up with the competition and trying to make a living. But now they have these huge malpractice insurance payments. This is a cost HMOs can easily absorb, but for private physicians, it adds even more to their costs of business, their need to increase their fees, their loss of patients, their financial stress.
So what happens? They're forced out of their professions. Or, they're minds are filled up with financial considerations and they are burdened with concerns…and now they're gonna treat you!
Foolin' the People About America: Republicans Are for Small Business?
Making It So You Need a Car to Do Anything
Well, I've been around long enough, I saw this before. It's a pattern of the big guys gobbling up the little ones. It's the story of creeping corporate insertion into every aspect of your life that you keep seeing over and over again in America. And it's changed America.
Back in the Time of Neighborhoods
There was a time when there were no supermarkets in America. I remember that time. You used to be able to walk up to the corner, walk down the street, and you'd see bakeries, drug stores. There were penny candy stores, there were meat markets…. There was a wonderful ambiance of community about it…it was a garden of delights…people smiling and everything.
Drive to the Store, Get a Loaf of Bread.
And now they have these huge mega supermarkets. And I saw the way it slowly changed; it didn't happen overnight.
Republicans—On the Side of the Mom-and-Pop Walmart
Those supermarkets — run by hourly wage workers — could beat mom-and-pop prices. Gradually over the years we don't have meat markets, bakery stores….
And Republicans say they are for the small businesses, the backbone of the middle class. Well, this is an example of just what a lie that is because, no, supermarkets are not small businesses. It's all those meat markets, bakery stores and all that–those are the small businesses, they are the mom and pop, those are the average Americans trying to be self employed. Self-employment is not huge corporations.
Continue with Culture War, Class War, Chapter Fifteen: Money Madness
Return to Culture War, Class War, Chapter Thirteen:
The Great American About Face
1. For a humorous, hard hitting aside on this callous attitude of Republicans, on behalf of the rich, and as contrasted with Democratic efforts, check out this audio monologue of mine, "You're Turning Down my Money for ME!…To Stare Down…Who?!!": Likely Constituent's Response to Republican Governors Who Turned Down Unemployment Money from Stimulus to "Score Points" Against Obama" below.
This four and a half minute clip is taken from the longer, 35-minute audio, "Naked Republicans Blue Meanies Fleeing or Looking Foolish."
"You're Turning Down my Money for ME!…To Stare Down…?!!…" –Comedy Monologue, audio clip by SillyMickel Adzema
Here is the audio clip of my comedic monologue. Click on the link to the audio site above or click the link to the audio player below. The script for this piece is included below the player, fyi.
About the audio above
[From July 2009] What a riot these Republicans are. There was Louisiana, Alaska, Arizona, South Carolina, and Texas governors refusing stimulus money to "show up Obama." Then they turn around and ask for it secretly, or as in the case recently with Texas, which turned down almost 550 million in unemployment extension money at the time, only in this last week (7/14-7/18) to ask for a loan from the federal government for about 440 million, get this, to pay for extensions on unemployment. HA!
Well, in this clip, I play a constituent of the Louisiana governor who went nationally to say he was going to turn down the unemployment money from the stimulus. Now, if you're a Louisianan, and you're on unemployment…hmmm…just imagine how freaking happy you'd be to hear that! Well, that is what I express in this clip.
Keep in mind this happened just after this governor had given the (horrible) Republican "response" to Barack Obama's unofficial "State of the Union" address in January. And this governor, Governor Bobby Jindal, at the time was being touted big time as a presidential front-runner for the Presidency in 2012.
You're gonna love this response to the self-serving "more principles-than-brains" political one-upsmanships at the expense of their constituents by these Republican x@#&%$%#@@# governors.
And the text of the "You're Turning Down my Money for ME…" audio:
Ok, so now I'm one of those "constituents." I'm thinking…
Thanks a lot, bastard, you think I got it easy? You jerk! Who the hell you think you are down there in Louisiana, Mr. freaking Governor who don't need no additional unemployment money. No, idiot! You GOT a job! It's me that can't find work and that's worried about my kids getting sick and, well, now the almost certainty, by the way because of your stupid-assed spiteful action to turn down my money for me. Now, I 'm gonna lose my house, worry about my kids staying healthy, but you've done what? You've stood up to Obama (the guy who was gonna give me money?) You've said we don't need no stinkin' money and made yourself a spectacle on the national stage and, you think (here's that lying again. You screwed us over and then you're thinking you can tell us that we were better than that or something of other of a slick confusing fog of insanity.), and you think that this will give you a leg towards the Presidency.
Well, Mr. Jerk-off turning down my money for me like it's my pride your fighting for, do you really think we are still that stupid, still that happy to be burdened and crushed for your aspirations, which obviously don't include, you've made that damn clear, doing anything for any person, any "constituent, any citizen, no, not anyone" and it's clear that our burdens are so meaningless to you that you will heap misery on us to do, now what was that again? You "stood up" to Obama? What the fuck, are you in grade school? Do you think I give a shit who's staring who down? I'm trying to live a life; a life that you have just put a cloud of unhappiness and worry over that will not go away form many many years; in fact I may never own a home again.
But I won't go on about things that cause your eyes to glaze over. Just let me ask you this Mister, wise-potato? You "stood up" to the guy who's gonna give me money, and hold out his hand to me. Ok, Mr. more principles-than-brains, what's your next big plan? Oh, I see, you're gonna stand up to, well, Santa Claus. Oh, yeah, I hear it all right. Out on the National stage; spoutin out as if you're talkin our mind; shit, you ain't even one of us. But I hear you:"
"Nope, Mr. Matthews, you see we're Louisianans? Not beggars. We don't need Christmas. We can take care of ourselves. Let you folks out there have Christmas. I mean, if you're so weak. So you've had it your whole life and now you're kind of like addicted to it. Well OK. I'm not going to talk down any on those who are obviously so weak and needy.
But, you see, Mr. Matthews… Mr. Matthews, well let me put it this way, you ever come down to Louisiana? Ever? To visit or anything? You have? So you've met with some of our citizens, have you? You have. Well, then you know what a strong-willed, strong-spirited, and PROUD people we are down here, don't you? You agree. So you see that's why. I knew you would agree because it's so obviously true about the folks that live down here, I didn't see how you'd miss it.
So that's OK, let Santa go somewhere else where he's , you know, where they're the folks that need to have a handout and can't get by the year without having a good time. No, my constituents are strong-willed, and they wouldn't have me letting any squirrely funny-suited guy out here prancin around and lookin foolish. Well, not us. We're not foolish. We're PROUD.
Here is an audio of the author's impassioned reading of this part. Though it is of the first, unedited and unpolished version, and it does not contain all the detail of its current form below, it does capture the flavor of it all. I offer it here for your listening pleasure. For the reading of this part, "The Rise and Fall of 'Obvious Truths,' Part Three," click on the link to the audio site above or click the link to the audio player below.
Posted in authenticity, being yourself, Consciousness, Environmentalism, individualism, nonconform, Politics, Psychology, Spirituality
Tags: 60s, abundance, abuse, ailment, Americans, antiwar, best health care in the world, big business, blood sugar, boehner, budget cuts, Bush, business, businessmen, candlelight vigil, car, care physicians, caring, cars, cash, cheney, choose, climate, college, comfort, community, competition, consumer, corporation, corporations, costs, coverage, CULTURE, current-events, death, death panels, debt, deficit, demonstration, denial, diabetes, die, doctor, documentary, drugs, eat, Education, Eighties, Environment, family, fast food, Fifties, Fifty years, food, food stamps, fruit drinks, greed, grocery, Grover Norquist, health, health care, health care coverage, health insurance, healthy-living, heart disease, hippie, history, hit man, HMO, hospital, house, hunger, insurance, Jesus, job, juice, ketchup, kill, kumbaya, larceny, life, Linda Peeno, Lord, malpractice, managed care, market, maternity, matrix, medical, medical provider, medical providers, medical system, medicine, michael moore, mistake, mom and pop, money, Monopoly, monopoly game, mortgage, mothers, neighborhood, Nixon, noble, Nordquist, nutrition, Obama, obamacare, obesity, obvious truths, occupy wall street, occupycollege, Oliver Twist, overweight, ows, paperwork, patient, Peaking, Pepsico, pharmaceuticals, physician, pizza, policy, politics, poor, population, practitioner, pre-existing condition, premium, prescription, prescriptions, pressure, private, private care, private physicians, private side, profit, profit motive, prosperity, protest, protestors, provider, psychology, reagan, republican, republicans, restaurants, rich, Rick Santelli, risk, ronald reagan, rules, Sappy, scapegoat, scholarship, school lunches, Seventies, sick, Sicko, single-payer, sixties, small business, society, Sol's death, soylent green, standard of living, starve, starve the beast, starving, store, student doctor, suffering, sugar, supermarket, sweets, tax, tax cuts, tax rates, tea party, tension, tests, the game, union, universal, universal health care, value compassion, vigil, voodoo economics, Walmart, war, wealth, wealthy, wimp, win, working poor, wuss
Cool Hand Gipper (The Great Hustle) and What the 1% Would Still Have of Us: The Great American About Face – Context of The American Awakening
Culture War, Class War, Chapter Thirteen:
Once Upon a Time, Kindness Was a Noble Thing
Why Insist on the Same Mistakes That Led to the Great Depression?
You don't know what I'm getting at. But this is the indicator of the gradual change in our country that would be missed by those younger than myself. I only see this glaring discrepancy because of having lived many years in an America whose values were different, and who thought differently, more compassionately than today. I know of an America where even that last big word that I used, compassionately, wasn't the dirty word that it is today…or the certain game loser, deal breaker if uttered.
What's Love Got to Do with It?
No. See, what's happened today is that it's not even society at large that is supposed to benefit. Compassion is not a goal, or even a value, when negotiating. The scornful repetition of those words, "bleeding heart liberal," has had its intended effect. No, no, it's not the function of government to care about anybody anymore.
It may be hard for you to realize what a huge change this is from, like, Roosevelt days. The Great Depression went on for a long time, crushing hopes and aspirations, shortening lives, increasing suffering. People lived beneath this yoke for a time that must often have felt interminable. They came out of this darkness only slowly, and with great effort.
There Was a Time When Kindness Was a Noble Thing.
So, yes, in those days, the easing of suffering was a value, compassion was a noble thing, not indicative of weakness like today. This is the way it was then and for most of the decades afterward, not much changing. Even Eisenhower, a Republican… he wasn't, y'know, at war with the common good in the Fifties; he didn't think government was not supposed to be compassionate, that it wasn't their job or anything, that they couldn't give anybody a helping hand or anything like that. But starting with Reagan and slowly since then it has become that.
People Suffering, People Dying…And This Guy Thinks It's a Card Game!
Perhaps you've heard it too. At the time of it, you would see it discussed all over. There was Rick Santelli on CNBC. This was at the time when it first got out that Obama might just–with millions of foreclosures, people living in tent-cities and everything–might just present as part of his overall policy to deal with the problem something to help…ok, there's one of those words (help), a certain game-loser; so you know what's coming next…something that might "help" people who are heading into foreclosure, people losing their homes. The idea was to renegotiate deals with the bank, to recalculate the terms of their mortgage to make it workable to both sides again.
Don't forget the banks had before that been given huge amounts of money by the American people. So in this plan, instead of proceeding with a foreclosure the banks were asked to be willing to accept slightly less money on the loan than the original terms called for.
It was thought, what would that hurt? After all the banks aren't going to lose. At the expense of the American people they've made out like bandits…in fact, they've been bandits…they used extortion to get that money out. With this policy they would get some money out of the loan instead of none in the case of the foreclosure; they would even still make a profit. The only thing they wouldn't be able to do is to add that note to the pile of losses they would be claiming as part of the government bailout. An aside, that last part — making less money than if they could claim it a loss—is the key to understanding the uproar about Obama's plan to help financially strapped home owners.
So we saw Rick Santelli, a highly visible financial commentator for CNBC, someone I saw everyday for years. He stood in front of the camera on the floor of the stock exchange; CNBC broadcast it to the world. He was against Obama's plan to "help" mortgage-holders…they should probably have used a different word than help. As he put it "In America, a card laid is a card played." He said, "This does away with contract law!"
Yes, We've Made This Mistake Before.
Well, yea, yea, they used to say those things back in Hoover's day too, alright? And then when everybody was hurting, and there was thirty to forty percent unemployment and nobody was making any money including the rich fat cats and they were losing their shirts in investments and no longer making money in the stock market, then…then…all of a sudden, ok, then it was ok to help out people who were starving.
But Why Do We Insist on Making It Again?
Well, why did it have to get to that? And why has it gotten to that again, even to where it's back to where it was…again…at the beginning of the Great Depression: No compassion allowed.
What is that? It's like "Oh, these people are all deadbeats here." Oh, yea, all those millions of people? Doesn't have anything to do with all that money that went to the rich people? Nothing to do with the fact that over the course of all these years we've seen the tax rates for the very wealthy go from eighty-some percent in the Fifties to where it is down below thirty-five percent now?
To offset those huge cuts in revenue, did we get any more prosperous in that time? Did those increasing cuts in taxes for the wealthy increasingly stimulate the economy? I repeat, did we get any more prosperous in that time? Did the tax cuts work the way the fat cats said they would?
Compassion = "Hippie." Mean-Spirited = The "Real" Reality of The Game
Kumbaya—You Value People Over Rules? You're No Doubt a "Hippie"
Well, I was there. No, they didn't…and we didn't…didn't get more prosperous. We're a lot worse off. Y'know, when I was growing up in the Fifties and Sixties my father was poor. But only he had to work! He might bring home fifty dollars a week, with six kids. But my mother didn't have to work. Believe me, fifty dollars in that day, it wasn't like it was worth a thousand dollars or something; there wasn't that much difference.
Kumbaya. My Lord!
So there used to be this idea of benefiting society-at-large. There was this thing put out–even though it was a sham on the part of Republicans–that if you could somehow convince the Democrats that what you wanted was going to benefit the "society at large" they might come over to your side. Republicans still found it useful to promote the idea that they were representing the people.
What "Extra" Kitchen?
But no, no, no. If you say now that something is going to benefit somebody…. Like Rick Santelli said, "Well, a card laid…contract law's all important…blah, blah, blah…. Does any of you people out there…" He was talking to the stock exchange people; he said, "Does any of you want to pay your hard-earned money so that the guy next door can have that extra kitchen that he put in?"
Now, where the hell did that come from? I hardly think that many of the people losing their homes were out there spending all their money on "extra" kitchens. So what's the implication? The implication is that we've got a bunch of losers, spendthrifts, who are throwing their money away and they don't deserve a break.
More Likely It Was Your "Extra" Kitchen, Rick. And, Thank You Very Much but We've Already Paid, and Dearly, for It.
Duh! Doesn't that sound like the banks? "Extra kitchen"…Doesn't that sound like the stock broker people, doesn't that sound like the people who are talking about the other people this way? Wow.
Anyway, it was played over and over again. There were even people, even some pundits and governmental folks in public who were saying, "Yes, he was expressing what lot of people are thinking." What the hell is that? That nobody can catch a break unless you're rich? See, that's what happens when something is repeated over and over and over again… Self-benefiting mean-spiritedness like this can be spoken of as being, somehow, reasonable.
A Broken Person Is Preferable to a Broken Rule in This Game.
And what is it that was repeated over and over and over again? Well, let me just put it this way…because I was there. You know the real issue here…when you say that it'll benefit "society at large" or you say it's going to help or benefit real people, or you indicate in some way that it's gonna ease the suffering of a lot of people… The real thing insinuated has to do with that thoroughly maligned idea—"bleeding heart liberal"—and things like that.
Worse than that, these days, is that when that human touch somehow gets in, it's no more considered a game! "It's supposed to be a game," that's what they're thinking, now. And it's like, "Aw come on you're trying to benefit people instead of playing a game." That's where that contract law comes in, it's like, "No, that's breaking the rules." Well we're supposed to be running a government for the people not for the rules, aren't we?
You Value People Over Rules? You're No Doubt a "Hippie."
So you don't even hear goodness coming in anymore. Or if you do hear the word compassionate it's at most the naive utterance of someone that's wet behind the years…some newbie or hippie…some "soft-headed" person who might have used it in a question in a town meeting, or the like.
And that's another thing. A hippie? What the hell's a hippie? Well this hippie can tell you. That is a definition I've watched change over the years. The definition in these strange days and among these current cold-hearted people is way different than originally.
In looking at this change in the meaning of hippie we bring into view another aspect of the overall argument I am making. I can tell you now that at the end you will see it all comes together neatly.
It all makes sense because of some basic human feelings, which are even present in large groups. Unfortunately those widely shared feelings are completely at odds with another set of commonly held basic human feelings that can be present and shared in another large group. That might sound complicated.
Compassion = "Hippie."
Mean-Spirited = The "Real" Reality of The Game
What I'm trying to say is, who might that hippie be? Basically, these days, if you are one of those that uses words like compassionate…you're a hippie!
And on the other side of this, the side that is presented to all, promulgated to everyone, and the only one considered "real," we've got these mean-spirited feelings. They are at war with the idea that we have government that's there to at all benefit, be on the side of, or even be for its citizens.
Like earlier I brought up the example of the Food and Drug Administration as something that benefits everyone, actual people, though it puts constraints on businesses. Government seen this way exists to protect American people in situations where they would otherwise be powerless. And that is based on this old-fashioned notion that it is a good thing to save people from dying or from suffering in situations where a single individual is helpless against a cultural or societal wrong.
Government could be seen this way because one preeminent value was that life was precious and good, that people dying was not good, that it was important to prevent that to the extent one could…more important than money or profits or the comfort and pleasure of people with riches. Those turn-of-the-century "hippies" valued life over arbitrary rules, people over profits, the common good over the capitalist game.
But I guess nowadays they'd say, "No, no, no…those people paid for that food!" And, you know, let the buyer beware. A dollar laid is a dollar played, after all.
Cool Hand Gipper (The Great Hustle) and What the 1% Would Still Have of Us: Context of The American Awakening
American Awakening and Cool Hand Gipper—"Obvious Truths," an Overview
"Obvious Truths" Parts One and Two Reprise
This is the third and final part in this series delineating the history of the American Republican' incredibly disciplined, relentlessly persistent, and amazingly cohesive … seemingly coordinated … nearly fifty-year campaign to gain advantage and wealth for their benefactor corporations and the "Filthy Rich" through totally concocted untruths.
We are seeing here revealed the fifty-year invisible family and community that surrounded all Americans and affected every aspect of their lives, including, and intentionally, the basic components of one's personality, and the erosion of reason, Soul, and independent thought or action.
I am showing how only because of increasingly cocky and greedy acts and extreme over-reaching "in broad daylight," before the entire world, did this malevolent surround become visible. These brutish and thievish over-reaches displayed an incredible disregard for, disrespect of, indeed, an actual literal inability of the "Filthy Rich"—the 1%—and their Republican puppets to SEE American People, who were the recipients of these attacks. Together these reveals, displayed unintentionally however blatantly and unknowingly by the Republicans and the "Filthy Rich"… and before the entire world…disclosed to the masses of Americans some "cracks," "stains," or textures in the "dome" of unreality they'd existed in, which had made them blind to Reality itself, and had kept them in a near zombie-like dream reality.
"They're so cute when they jump for their treat."
As this Awakening continued, some began remembering events, the memories of which had been "bleached" out of awareness until just then, and then with remembering they realized how they'd been trained like animals their entire lives for the uses, whatever they'd be, of the "Filthy Rich," and been trained then to forget that.
"From here, they look just like ants."
It is clear that the "filthy rich" had an absolute certainty of their success because of their unmitigated power. What is also evident is the absolute inability of the "Filthy Rich"…which was the shocking thing they'd carelessly let out and therefore displayed to the World…absolute inability of the Republicans and the "Filthy Rich" to actually notice, let alone view or act towards, Americans as any thing even living or having sentient ability, let alone as humans, people, or individuals.
All We Have to Do Is Dream.
And as for the term "fellow Americans" often employed by Rich-publican politicos, if that thought even crossed your mind for a second as being anything but a device, you are not fully appreciating just how literally I mean for my words to be taken. You may very well, in fact, be deeply dreaming and have missed the crack in the dream state that had shone the light in the eyes of a sufficiently large segment of the world population as to cause them to come out of trance and begin to untie their formerly invisible bonds, so that they could try looking around, which led to the realization of the reality that had been blocked from view, and the beginnings of investigations into the real truths of their existence, and to this series of expositions, which delineates the actual, formerly invisible profile of the actual actors in American's lives, and the processes of control, and the things in their lives that were determined for them by the "Filthies," though ordinary folks thought they had been making decisions for themselves.
What The 1% Want to Do With Us
And the last aspects of this series delineates the real factors in your life and the outlines of the real intentions for our lives these puppet masters have had, and have even now in mind.
Processing the Populace
In Part One, I talked about the fifty-year Republican campaign to convince the media and the American people of certain truisms that had nothing to do with the truth, in fact were almost one-hundred percent of the time, the opposite of the truth. It is a pretty amazing story of a campaign involving such things as getting people poorer and poorer, requiring them to work longer hours and so on so that they would have less time to think about things. It included other elements such as the way in which people's minds were either stressed or made busy, and also the way they wore down the American people's resolve to fight back against injustice.
Part Two elaborated on these parts of the campaign, which together resulted in an erosion of reason among Americans. I discussed how this erosion of reason resulted in an erosion of action as well and why this would be desirable by the societal puppet-masters. Next, I discussed the means of the manipulation—the media, the puppet strings employed by the masters.
The Great Hustle (Cool Hand Gipper)
After that I talked about the way our lives were focused away from human concerns and reduced to the level of a game, contrived by the elite and which was geared toward their ends, suited to their abilities, and in which they dominated. This game was most of the time camouflaged in positive, civic sounding phrases and terminology that made it seem that it was an endeavor for the betterment of all, but I explained how it actually was played and what the motives and ends really were.
$$$ 666 The Great Religion
Last, I bring out how even this ruse of societal welfare was ever more let go of, as the puppet-kings gained in strength and in success in converting mass minds to a belief in the dogma of the game that they controlled.
Dogma Keeping Out Pesky Saviors
They channeled people's inclinations away from their own priorities and from human concerns to be in alignment with the overseer's non-humanistic, alien ones. Human concerns such as life, easing of suffering and the like were seen as silly and laughable.
And Then The Awakening
As they gathered power, they became more blatant and reckless in their machinations. The game was successfully installed as the focus and preeminent value of life itself; but in this headiness of accomplishment they became complacent about their subterfuge. Reckless in their maneuvers and ever more careless in concealing it, they risked being exposed.
Nightmare Apparent
Aspects of their self-benefiting game play and the cockiness with which they pursued them are further disclosed here in Part Three. We see how this creates a condition of such extreme suffering in the populace that stimulates them into awakening from the dream. The matrix is glimpsed. How the masses awaken and behold in horror the shackles and blinders upon them is described beginning here and in subsequent parts of Culture War, Class War.
Parts One and Two are intended to be read before this one, but if you haven't done so this review will gave you a platform from which to view what follows.
"Brother, I Do Not Know Thee."
Part Three continues from the end of Part Two where I was describing how the brouhaha around Rich Santelli's callous comment revealed a wholesale and disturbing change in American's sensitivities toward each other and in particular a callousness about each other's suffering. Part Three continues from here:
Foolin' the People About History: Reagan's Great Ruse and The Face of the Enemy, Ours
Foolin' the People About History…Reagan's Great Ruse and The Face of the Enemy, Ours
Foolin' the People About History
Reagan "saved" America.
Reagan saved Americans from an oppressive tax burden.
Reagan brought down the Iron Curtain, the Soviets, Berlin Wall.
In America we were far better off than the Soviets were because… We are the richest country in the world. In America we only get better.
wealthier.
don't have to work as hard.
can take better care of our children.
So these days you have the attitude, "A dollar laid is a dollar played"; people's suffering is irrelevant to the game.
Reagan's Great Ruse
We have seen a lot of change over the last five decades. And many new thoughts have become truisms that are actually not true. In the real world they're nonsensical.
The Eighties Changed Everything…The Great Swindle.
Unfortunately they abound because of the cultural change initiated by Ronald Reagan that lowered the standard of living for everyone except for the rich who were the beneficiaries of that switch. It was the greatest shift of money upward, to the higher classes, in history, at that time. Bush in the last decade outdid him though.
The Republicans pulled off this transfer of wealth under the banner of capitalism. The huge tax cuts for the seriously rich, which was how this relocation of money was accomplished, began with Reagan. When it was proposed during the 1980 presidential race Bush the Elder called it "voodoo economics." This was before he was invited on the ticket with Reagan.
Voodoo economics gradually brought the highest marginal rate of taxes down below thirty percent from the seventy percent it had been when Reagan took office. This should be compared with the ninety-some percent it was under Democratic and Republican presidents—Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy—in the 1940s through 1963. Reaganomics took corporate tax rates down to forty percent from the fifty percent that it had been previous to that beginning in the Forties.
Keep in mind that these were times—Forties through Sixties—when America's economy boomed, turning the US into the wealthiest country in the world. Remember also that the last time, previous to Reagan, that marginal tax rates were below forty percent was in the Twenties, prior to the Great Depression. Not coincidentally at that same time, preceding the Depression, corporate tax rates were also at their lowest and were down in the teens. History records how well those low corporate and private marginal rates worked out. This did not stop the Reaganites from opting to repeat the previous debacle.
The Face of the Enemy, Ours
Overall, this bonanza for the rich–along with union-busting and other anti-worker practices by Reagan–had the effect of gradually lowering the standard of living for the vast majority of Americans. The result could not have been more ironic. These pro-capitalist, fervid anti-communist Republicans like Reagan and his supporters began the process that would make us mirror images of Soviet Russia in several hugely important ways.
At One Time, "Women Don't Have to Work"; At Another, "Women Are Free to Work."
Reaganomics brought in the two-salary family. This had been one of those major propaganda points for the anti-communists in the Fifties: We were horrified finding out that behind the Iron Curtain both parents had to have jobs to support their family. It was thrown out as one of the ways we were superior in our capitalist way of life—American wives and mothers did not have to work and were able to spend their time instead raising the children.
The anti-communist Reaganites also brought in institutional child care, for now this was needed because both parents were working. Someone had to take care of the children, and they would begin that at earlier and earlier ages.
At One Time, "Strangers Take Care of Their Kids"; At Another, "Child Care Teaches Social Skills and Enhances Multicultural Awareness."
Again, extramural child care was one of those elements of Soviet life that in the Fifties was pointed out to us disdainfully and which we were grateful not to be subject to. It would be thought inhuman, if not barbaric, for children to be cared for by strangers, while the mother was working. There was something dangerous, if not lascivious, insinuated to us by propagandists, about pre-school children not being with their mothers, not receiving her protection and love during that vulnerable and needy time, but being instead "in the hands of strangers"…(god forbid!)
But after Reagan this dreaded feature of Soviet culture became the norm in American culture as well.
So Reagan's economic policies pushed Americans into a lower standard of living—fooling them in all kinds of ways that this was not the case—which was evident in major changes in American culture which mirrored that of the Soviets such as the virtual requirement of two-salary families and along with that the necessity of child care outside the family at earlier and earlier years. But these Soviet-like changes did not also bring with them Communist benefits of job security, free child and medical care, guaranteed lifelong support, and so on.
Continue with Culture War, Class War, Chapter Fourteen:
Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago?
Return to Culture War, Class War, Chapter Twelve: Only The Game Remains
The Rise and Fall of "Obvious Truths,"Part Two – an Audio Reading by SillyMickel Adzema
Here is an audio of the author's impassioned reading of this part. Though it is of the first, unedited and unpolished version, and it does not contain all the detail of its current form below, it does capture the flavor of it all. I offer it here for your listening pleasure. For the reading of this part, "The Rise and Fall of 'Obvious Truths,' Part Two," click on the link to the audio site above or click the link to the audio player below.
http://cdn.hark.com/swfs/player_fb.swf?pid=dhvsqlbnjl
The Rise and Fall of Obvious Truths, Part 2. by SillyMickel Adzema
http://cdn.hark.com/swfs/player_fb.swf?pid=gjhxqmkbdn
"The Rise and Fall of 'Obvious Truths' Part 3"
Posted in audio, authenticity, being yourself, Consciousness, Environmentalism, individualism, nonconform, Politics, Primal Spirit, Primal Spirituality, Religion, Spirituality, video
Tags: 1%, 666, 80s, 99%, alien, america, american, American Awakening, anti-communist, authenticity, awareness, bandit, bleeding heart, bleeding heart liberal, broken, Bush, business, callous, capitalism, change, child care, children, class warfare, CNBC, Communist, compassion, compassionate, compassionately, Consciousness, contract law, corporation, CULTURE, current-events, deadbeat, death, democrats, dream, economics, economy, Eighties, Eisenhower, fat cat, FDA, Fifties, filthy rich, Food and Drug Administration, forget, Forties, game, game loser, Gipper, government, Great Depression, help, hippie, history, hustle, individualism, iron curtain, Kennedy, kindness, kitchen, kumbaya, loan, loser, Love, manipulate, manipulation, marginal tax rate, masses, matrix, mean-spirited, mean-spiritedness, media, mistake, money, mortgage, nightmare, noble, nonconform, obvious truths, occupy, occupy wall street, occupywallstreet, ows, policy, politics, poor, propaganda, psychology, puppet, reagan, reaganomics, reality, religion, repeat, republican, republican presidents, rich, Rich Santelli, Rick Santelli, ronald reagan, rules, sixties, society, Soviet Russia, spendthrift, standard of living, suffering, swindle, tax rates, taxes, The Awakening, transfer, truisms, truth, two-salary family, union, union-busting, US, value compassion, values, voodoo economics, war, wealth, wealthy, work, zombie.
Money Madness … Foolin' the People About Money, Part Two: Obvious "Truth"—The Wealthy Are the Job Creators
The Wealthy Are the Creative Sector All Right … Creative in Stealing Our Money: Money Madness … Foolin' the People About Money, Part 2
Continue with Makin' People Foolish – Foolin' the People About "Us" (The Rich): Money Madness … Foolin' the People About Money, Part 3
Return to Tax the Wealthy, You're Taxing Me: Money Madness … Foolin' the People About Money, Part 1
Continue with Makin' People Foolish – Foolin' the People About "Us" (The Rich): Money Madness … Foolin' the People
Posted in Consciousness, nonconform, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Spirituality
Tags: 1%, american, American way, art, billionaire, business, class warfare, creative sector, democrats, diminishing marginal returns, economy, Eighties, employment, famous paintings, filthy rich, foolish, invest, investing in art, job creators, jobs, journalist, liars, lie, mad, madness, millionaire, money, money madness, obvious truths, occupy wall street, ows, paintings, politics, poor, psychology, pundit, reagan, real truths, republicans, rich, society, spend, squander, tax cuts, taxes, truth, untruths, wealth creators, wealthy, yachts
Continue With With the Excuse of "The Game," Small-Hearted Folks Can Now Flaunt Their Mean-Spiritedness – The Compassion Gap…Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago? Part 5
Return to Aren't America's "Extermination Policies" Just More Undetectable Than Nazi Germany's? Starving the "Beast"—That Means You: Your Money or Your Life
The Rise and Fall of "Obvious Truths," Part Three– an Audio Reading by SillyMickel Adzema
Posted in Anthropology, Consciousness, life, Politics, Spirituality
Tags: ailment, america, best health care in the world, boehner, Bush, cheney, choose, costs, death, deficit, die, doctor, Fifties, Fifty years, greed, health, health care, hospital, kill, life, medical system, medicine, Nixon, obamacare, physician, poor, prescription, prescriptions, reagan, republicans, risk, sick, single-payer, sixties, Sol's death, soylent green, starve the beast, student doctor, suffering, tests, universal, universal health care, working poor
Foolin' the People About America. Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago? Part One: Peaking in the Sixties
Continue with Starving for Prosperity: Foolin' the People About America…Better Off Than Fifty Years Ago? Part 2
Return to Foolin' the People About History: Reagan's Great Ruse and The Face of the Enemy, Ours
Posted in Consciousness, Politics, Psychology
Tags: america, Americans, car, cars, cash, college, consumer, CULTURE, current-events, debt, Education, Eighties, Environment, family, Fifties, Fifty years, government, health care, health insurance, history, hospital, house, job, maternity, medical, mortgage, mothers, obvious truths, occupycollege, Peaking, pharmaceuticals, politics, poor, population, reagan, republicans, ronald reagan, scholarship, Seventies, sixties, small business, society, standard of living, voodoo economics
Compassion = "Hippie." Mean-Spirited = The "Real" Reality of The Game: The Great American About Face, Part 2
Kumbaya—You Value People Over Rules? You're No Doubt a "Hippie": The Great American About Face, Part Two
Noticing That Tax Cuts Don't Work = Kumbaya, You're a "Hippie"
Why has it gotten back to to where it was at the beginning of the Great Depression: No compassion allowed. The attitude toward those struggling financially is, "Oh, those people are all deadbeats there."
Did We Get More Prosperous Since the Sixties With the Increased Tax Cuts Since the Sixties?
Really? All those millions of people? Doesn't have anything to do with all that money that went to the rich people in the last three decades? Nothing to do with the fact that over the course of all these years we've seen the tax rates for the very wealthy go from eighty-some percent in the Fifties to where it is down below thirty-five percent now?
To offset those huge cuts in revenue, did we get any more prosperous in that time? Did those increasing cuts in taxes for the wealthy increasingly stimulate the economy? Did the tax cuts work the way the fat cats said they would?
Continue with Cool Hand Gipper (The Great Hustle) and What the 1% Would Still Have of Us: Context of The American Awakening
Return to Once Upon a Time, Kindness Was a Noble Thing: The Great American About Face, Part 1
Posted in authenticity, being yourself, Consciousness, Environmentalism, individualism, life, meaning, Politics, Primal Spirit, Primal Spirituality, Psychology, Religion, Spirituality
Tags: 1%, 99%, america, american, beginning of the great depression, broken, change, class warfare, compassion, compassionate, contract law, current-events, democrats, economy, fat cat, fat cats, FDA, Fifties, filthy rich, Food and Drug Administration, game, government, Great Depression, hippie, kitchen, kumbaya, last three decades, loser, mean-spirited, mean-spiritedness, money, occupy wall street, people, politics, poor, reality, repeat, rich, Rick Santelli, rules, sixties, spendthrift, tax cuts, tax rates, values, wealthy
The Truth Behind the Good Ronald Reagan, The Myth of the Good Reagan Presidency.
The Truth Behind the Good Ronald Reagan
Mar 7, 2011 12:13am by Mickel Adzema
The Truth Behind the Good Ronald Reagan; The Myth of the Good Reagan Presidency. The Origin's of Today's Biggest Woes in the Reagan Presidency (and why and how the moneyed interests would do all they could to present an opposite, untrue story of Reagan, fabricate a good Ronald Reagan presidency mythology, smoke and lies)
Peter Dreier's illuminating article debunks the mythology swirling around Ronald Reagan. We see how Reagan is the the father of America's slide into the financial ruin, cultural mediocrity, fascist government policy, and social distress that we are immersed in at the moment. Some highlights of his article include:
let us not forget that many of the serious problems facing America today began or worsened during Reagan's presidency.
a growing chorus of journalists, politicians, and pundits are using this hundredth-birthday milestone to rewrite history and bestow on Reagan a Mount Rushmore–like status as one of our greatest presidents. That's hogwash.
During his two terms in the White House (1981–89), Reagan presided over
a widening gap between the rich and everyone else
declining wages and living standards for working families
an assault on labor unions as a vehicle to lift Americans into the middle class
a dramatic increase in poverty and homelessness
and the consolidation and deregulation of the financial industry that led to the current mortgage meltdown, foreclosure epidemic and lingering recession
Reagan's policy and political choices based on an underlying "you're on your own" ideology.
Reagan is often lauded as "the great communicator," but what he often communicated were lies and distortions
Reagan's most famous statement—"Government is not a solution to our problem. Government is the problem"—has become the unofficial slogan for the recent resurgence of right-wing extremism. The rants of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, the lunacy of Tea Party, the policy ideas promulgated by propaganda outfits like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation masquerading as think tanks and the takeover of the Republican Party by its most conservative wing were all incubated during the Reagan years. Indeed, they all claim to be carrying out the Reagan Revolution
Many Americans credit Reagan with reducing the size of government. In reality, he increased government spending, cut taxes and turned the United States from a creditor to a debtor nation. During his presidency, Reagan escalated the military budget while slashing funds for domestic programs that assisted working-class Americans and protected consumers and the environment. Not surprisingly, both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush followed in Reagan's footsteps.
But, unfortunately, so did Bill Clinton. During his first campaign for the presidency, Clinton correctly observed that "the Reagan-Bush years have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect." But a few years later, as president, Clinton proclaimed, echoing Reagan, that "the era of big government is over," which he carried out by slashing welfare benefits for poor children.
Reagan—with his avuncular style, optimism and just-plain-folks demeanor—turned government-bashing into an art form.
Accompanying the Reagan era was the rise of a well-oiled corporate-funded conservative propaganda machine—including think tanks and lobby groups, endowed professorships at universities, legal advocacy organizations, magazines, and college student internships to train the next generation—designed to demonize activist government and glorify unregulated markets.
Reagan's fans give him credit for restoring the nation's prosperity. But whatever economic growth occurred during the Reagan years mostly benefitted those already well off. The income gap between the rich and everyone else in America widened. Wages for the average worker declined
Meanwhile, the rich got much richer. By the end of the decade, the richest 1 percent of Americans had 39 percent of the nation's wealth.
When the dust settled in the late 1980s, hundreds of S&Ls and banks had gone under, billions of dollars of commercial loans were useless and the federal government was left to bail out the depositors whose money the speculators had looted to the tune of over $130 billion.
Under Reagan, government's role shifted from policing Wall Street and protecting consumers to a see-no-evil enabler, encouraging banks to engage in irresponsible practices. This was just the first chapter in the slide towards today's financial crisis.
Another of Reagan's enduring legacies is the steep increase in the number of homeless people, which by the late 1980s had swollen to 600,000 on any given night—and 1.2 million over the course of a year. Many were Vietnam veterans, children and laid-off workers.
In early 1984 on "Good Morning America," Reagan defended himself against charges of callousness toward the poor in a classic blaming-the-victim statement. He said that "people who are sleeping on the grates…the homeless…are homeless, you might say, by choice."
Since his death, we've named a major airport, many schools and lots of streets after Ronald Reagan. Perhaps now, as we celebrate the centennial of his birth, a more fitting tribute to his legacy would be for each American city to name a park bench—where at least one homeless person sleeps every night—in honor of our fortieth president.
7. posted by: ljsopjes at 02/06/2011 @ 1:33pm
We also need a piece which clearly dispels the myth that Reagan was responsible for ending the Cold War.
8. posted by: darthchris67 at 02/06/2011 @ 4:20pm
Without the Gipper, where would W have been able to come up with what Stephen Colbert called "truthiness":
"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." March 4, 1987
Amplify'd from http://www.thenation.com
Reagan's Real Legacy
As the nation embarks on a celebration this Sunday of the hundredth anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's birth—with conferences, museum exhibits and lots of speeches—let us not forget that many of the serious problems facing America today began or worsened during Reagan's presidency.
Why not let Reagan, who died in 2004, rest in peace? Because a growing chorus of journalists, politicians, and pundits are using this hundredth-birthday milestone to rewrite history and bestow on Reagan a Mount Rushmore–like status as one of our greatest presidents.
That's hogwash.
During his two terms in the White House (1981–89), Reagan presided over a widening gap between the rich and everyone else, declining wages and living standards for working families, an assault on labor unions as a vehicle to lift Americans into the middle class, a dramatic increase in poverty and homelessness, and the consolidation and deregulation of the financial industry that led to the current mortgage meltdown, foreclosure epidemic and lingering recession.
These trends were not caused by inevitable social and economic forces. They resulted from Reagan's policy and political choices based on an underlying "you're on your own" ideology.
Reagan is often lauded as "the great communicator," but what he often communicated were lies and distortions. For example, during his stump speeches, while dutifully promising to roll back welfare, Reagan often told the story of a so-called "welfare queen" in Chicago who drove a Cadillac and had ripped off $150,000 from the government using eighty aliases, thirty addresses, a dozen Social Security cards and four fictional dead husbands. Journalists searched for this "welfare cheat" in the hopes of interviewing her and discovered that she didn't exist. But this phony imagery of "welfare cheats" persisted and helped lay the groundwork for cuts to programs that help the poor, including children.
Reagan's most famous statement—"Government is not a solution to our problem. Government is the problem"—has become the unofficial slogan for the recent resurgence of right-wing extremism. The rants of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, the lunacy of Tea Party, the policy ideas promulgated by propaganda outfits like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation masquerading as think tanks and the takeover of the Republican Party by its most conservative wing were all incubated during the Reagan years. Indeed, they all claim to be carrying out the Reagan Revolution.
What did that revolution bring us?
Indeed, Reagan's most important domestic legacy is our government's weakened ability to do its job protecting families, consumers, workers and the environment.
How did Reagan revise America's thinking about the role of government? Before Reagan took office, the American public was already growing more skeptical about government and politicians, exacerbated by the lies told by Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon about the Vietnam war, Nixon's Watergate scandal and President Jimmy Carter's inability to deal with the twin problems of rising prices and unemployment, often called "stagflation." But Reagan—with his avuncular style, optimism and just-plain-folks demeanor—turned government-bashing into an art form.
And he had a lot of help. Accompanying the Reagan era was the rise of a well-oiled corporate-funded conservative propaganda machine—including think tanks and lobby groups, endowed professorships at universities, legal advocacy organizations, magazines, and college student internships to train the next generation—designed to demonize activist government and glorify unregulated markets. Years before Rush Limbaugh began his radio ministry to his conservative congregation of ditto-heads, Reagan and this right-wing echo chamber were on the job.
Reagan's fans give him credit for restoring the nation's prosperity. But whatever economic growth occurred during the Reagan years mostly benefitted those already well off. The income gap between the rich and everyone else in America widened. Wages for the average worker declined and the nation's homeownership rate fell. During Reagan's two terms in the White House, the minimum wage was frozen at $3.35 an hour, while prices rose, thus eroding the standard of living of millions of low-wage workers. The number of people living beneath the federal poverty line rose from 26.1 million in 1979 to 32.7 million in 1988. Meanwhile, the rich got much richer. By the end of the decade, the richest 1 percent of Americans had 39 percent of the nation's wealth.
After signing the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act in 1982, Reagan presided over the dramatic deregulation of the nation's savings-and-loan industry. The law allowed S&Ls to end their reliance on home mortgages and permitted banks to provide adjustable-rate mortgage loans. The S&Ls began a decade-long orgy of real estate speculation, mismanagement and fraud. The industry indulged in a wild ride of merger mania, with banks and S&Ls gobbling each other up and making loans to finance shopping malls, golf courses, office buildings and condo projects that had no financial logic other than a quick-buck profit.
Under Reagan, government's role shifted from policing Wall Street and protecting consumers to a see-no-evil enabler, encouraging banks to engage in irresponsible practices. This was just the first chapter in the slide towards today's financial crisis. Things got even worse—much worse—in the decades after Reagan left office. Both Bushes, as well as Clinton, took up where Reagan left off in granting banks and insurance companies permission to wreak havoc on consumers and the economy. This lead to the epidemic of subprime loans and foreclosures of the past three years and the costly federal bail-out of "too big to fail" Wall Street banks.
Reagan's indifference to urban problems was legendary. Early in his presidency, at a White House reception, Reagan greeted the only black member of his Cabinet, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Samuel Pierce, saying: "How are you, Mr. Mayor? I'm glad to meet you. How are things in your city?"
Reagan not only failed to recognize his own HUD Secretary, he failed to deal with the growing corruption scandal at the agency that resulted in the indictment and conviction of top Reagan administration officials for illegally targeting housing subsidies to politically connected developers. Pierce and others rigged the allocation of subsidies for housing projects to favor Reagan's campaign contributors and GOP lobbyists, such as former Interior Secretary James Watt. Fortunately for Reagan, the "HUD Scandal" wasn't uncovered until he'd left office.
Reagan didn't invent the pay-to-play game or the revolving door of top government officials becoming well-paid lobbyists and government contractors. But his hands-off attitude toward government oversight contributed to the deepening culture of corruption in our nation's capital.
The 1980s saw pervasive racial discrimination by banks, real estate agents and landlords, unmonitored by the Reagan administration. Community groups uncovered blatant redlining by banks. But Reagan's HUD and Department of Justice failed to prosecute or sanction banks that violated the Community Reinvestment Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in lending. During that time, of the 40,000 applications from banks requesting permission to expand their operations, Reagan's bank regulators denied only eight of them on grounds of violating CRA regulations.
The declining fiscal fortunes of America's cities began during the Reagan years. By the end of his second term, federal assistance to local governments had been slashed by 60 percent. Reagan eliminated general revenue sharing to cities, cut funding for public service jobs and job training, almost dismantled federally funded legal services for the poor, cut the antipoverty Community Development Block Grant program and reduced funds for public transit.
These cutbacks had a disastrous effect on cities with high levels of poverty and limited property tax bases, many of which depended on federal aid to provide basic services. In 1980 federal dollars accounted for 22 percent of big city budgets. By the end of Reagan's second term, federal aid was only 6 percent. The consequences were devastating to urban schools and libraries, municipal hospitals and clinics, and sanitation, police and fire departments—many of which had to shut their doors. Many cities still haven't recovered from the downward spiral started during the Gipper's presidency.
The most dramatic cut in domestic spending during the Reagan years was for low-income housing subsidies. In his first year in office, Reagan cut the budget for public housing and Section 8 rent subsidies in half. Congress thwarted his plan to wide out federal housing assistance to the poor altogether, but he got much of what he sought. In the 1980s the proportion of the eligible poor who received federal housing subsidies declined substantially.
2. posted by: aznative at 02/06/2011 @ 10:18am
Ugh, the beginning of the end, I remember it well, the 80's, the time when everything went to sh*t. Reagan cared for nothing along with his cabinet. I will not forget.
Read more at http://www.thenation.com
Tags: conservative, cultural mediocrity, economics, fascism, financial ruin, government, history, homeless, legacy, lies, moneyed interests, mythology, nation, peter dreier, politics, poor, poverty, reagan, real, rich, ronald reagan, social distress
"None of Adzema books will lecture you; no heavy handed persuasion. You simply get a sense of his quiet confidence… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… @sillymickel 1 hour ago
Archives Select Month January 2023 (1) February 2022 (1) March 2020 (2) February 2020 (2) February 2019 (31) March 2018 (2) October 2015 (5) September 2015 (12) August 2015 (1) June 2014 (8) May 2014 (5) April 2014 (10) March 2014 (25) February 2014 (7) January 2014 (9) December 2013 (15) November 2013 (2) October 2013 (3) September 2013 (20) August 2013 (16) July 2013 (19) June 2013 (5) May 2013 (3) March 2013 (2) February 2013 (11) January 2013 (15) December 2012 (23) November 2012 (24)