The State Of The Union, started out as they all seem to with a bunch of feel good rah rah, rhetorical bullshit. Then the President moved on to the wishful thinking portion of the program.

“To recover the rest, I’ve proposed a fee on the biggest banks.”

This of course is not original to the SOTU, as it’s been discussed before. It’s a piss poor idea, because unless a law is passed not allowing the banks to pass the fee on to the consumers, that is exactly what will happen.

Then there’s more rhetorical bullshit. And finally then the trickle of ideas begins.

“That is why jobs must be our No. 1 focus in 2010, and that’s why I’m calling for a new jobs bill tonight.”

Hmm. Great idea. And this wasn’t number one focus in 2009 why?

“So tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat.”

Well it’s a great idea in theory. Of course many community banks are in pretty good shape because they didn’t play stupid bullshit games with money. Plus of course if they make the program easy to use, then people will, but my fear is that they’ll make it so complex that it will be more of a symbolic gesture than a meaningful program.

“I’m also proposing a new small-business tax credit, one that will go to over 1 million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages.”

I do like this idea, especially the ‘or raise wages’ part. So many of these programs only focus on job “creation” and loose sight of existing workers who could use a better wage.

“While we’re at it, let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small-business investment and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment.”

Well for small businesses I think it’s a good idea, but frankly large businesses don’t need the help anywhere nearly as desperately. If small businesses and working people could wait while the banks got bailed out, then I think the big businesses can wait while the small businesses and working people get their help.

“Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act.”

I hate, Hate, HATE this high speed rail bullshit. First of all the money set aside for it is nowhere near enough to have a truly national high speed rail network. I think it would make much better sense to take that money and invest it in mass transit. Both interstate and intrastate. Let’s get reliable bus service in every community, every state, and then between the states. It’s easier to do right now that high speed rail, plus it will maximize the benefits of refurbishing our roads and highways.

“We should put more Americans to work building clean-energy facilities and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean-energy jobs.”

Well it’s a nice idea in theory, but frankly I suspect the implementation will turn the whole thing into more of a token effort than an actual one.

“And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America.”

Well it’s a great idea who’s time has more than come. But I predict that what will happen is that there will be no momentum with it, because they have no intention of actually doing it.

“We can’t afford another so-called economic “expansion” like the one from last decade, what some call the “lost decade,” where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion, where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs, where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.”

Now those are true words and needed saying. However because of the nature of politics Obama will never speak the full truth, which is that the bubbles go back further than Bush Jr. To Clinton, and those bubbles started to pop almost the instant he was out of office. Between that and near total deregulation, these problems really have been building since Reagan, and no president has been willing to take the steps needed to stop them.

Next is the yay technology portion of the program. Most of which while rhetorical is good sense. Except for nuclear plants which are of questionable value, and even worse Obama actually allowed the lie that is “Clean Coal” to pass his lips.

“I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But — but here’s the thing. Even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future,”

I have to admit I like the way he side stepped the ideological part of the debate and appealed to people’s greed. If that’s what it takes to get change made then I’m all for it.

“Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support 2 million jobs in America.”

A great goal, but unless they actually do disincentivize taking jobs out of this country it will never happen.

“But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules.”

Great idea. I doubt if he has the balls though. Every a president get’s called “protectionist” they back down.

“Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people. Now, this year — this year, we’ve broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools.

And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform, reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city.”

Yeah, and all babies need milk.

“In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education.”

Oh, really? Tell that to the Phd’s out there who have spent months looking for work.

“And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential. When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states.

Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That’s why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families.”

Well he used fairly weak and coded language, but basically he said tepidly what I have said forcefully which is that there needs to be some national standards for things like contract law, or education. And allowing states total say over everything is nonsense. Also it was nice to see the Working Class get a mention, no matter how back handed.

“To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let’s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants.

And let’s tell another 1 million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years, and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.”

These are some wonderful ideas. I sincerely hope they get them done. Because right now as it stands no one except the rich can truly “afford” college.

“That’s why we’re nearly doubling the childcare tax credit and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That’s why we’re working to lift the value of a family’s single largest investment, their home.”

Again some good ideas. But how about providing incentive for people to either not have kids, or limit the size of their families?

And then a little rah rah Healthcare reform.

Then there’s the spending freeze, a call for an end to tax cuts for big businesses (which wouldn’t they be replaced by other tax cuts you are proposing for big businesses?) Also a very nice reminder that things were messed up when Obama got into office, although as I say earlier it goes back much further than Bushco.

Then he gives the ‘Yay War’ portion of the speech ending with this totally naive statement,

“But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”

I’d say it’s more likely that even if we do rapidly disengage from Afghanistan we will just end up waging ‘war on terror’ some where else.

An then there’s more rhetorical bullshit with a call for ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell buried in there somewhere.

Ultimately there were some wonderful ideas. But if Obama is really going to cling to this fantasy that the Republicans (most of them anyway) are actually going to cross party lines and try to work with their mortal enemies then nothing is going to get done.

As for the Republicant “response”, well basically all it did was echo what Obama said, but with coded pro bigotry and anti choice rhetoric salted in. Frankly it made me long for Bobby Jindal.

One more thing before I leave you for the day my loyal readers, if you are looking for an assessment of the factualness of Obama’s statements, my advice is to look to Politifact, and ignore the AP’s assessment which looked to me to have a very blatant Right Wing bias. Liberal media my ass.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

(This article originally appeared at The One About…)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Robert Reich: Obama Needs To Teach The Public How to Get Out Of The Mess We’re In, But He’s Not (huffingtonpost.com)
• Michael Lind: What Will Future Generations of Progressives Think? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Sally Kohn: Beyond Band-Aids For Our Broken Economy (huffingtonpost.com)
• News Analysis: Experts Say a Rewrite of Nation’s Main Education Law Will Be Hard This Year (nytimes.com)
• State of the Union: Businesses React (blogs.wsj.com)

Yesterday the news broke that historian and author Howard Zinn passed away from a heart attack. He is best known for having authored A People’s History Of The United States, which covers everything from 1492 up through the Clinton and Bush Presidencies. But instead of detailing the activities of the powerful Zinn instead focused on the actions of every day people. Some of them victims of the powerful, some of them champions of their fellow people. And for this he has been called a hero, a commie dupe, and everything in between. Well to me, he is a true hero, and part of the reason why I am here, doing what I do.

When I started to pay active attention to politics a year ago I started to look around for books to read that would give me some perspective. Zinn’s was one of the one’s I found early on, but kept passing by. Finally I read it and was enraptured. In part by the details of every day people, and seeing their lives treated as worthy of attention. But also by Zinn’s own life. Hearing his story of being a bomber pilot in World War Two, and how on one of his final missions he dropped a substance that later he would deduce was napalm. This resulted in him having an awakening about America and the often immoral things it does. Some people would attempt to quiet their conscience. But Zinn instead heeded it. He began to seek ways to improve his corner of the world. Whether it was encouraging his students to stand up for their rights, or standing up for them himself.

While there are other voices in the Progressive pantheon that I have a lot of respect for, Noam Chomsky and Joe Bageant to name two, many of whom are intelligent and inspiring, many of them I don’t really connect with. In part because even as disillusioned and angry as I may be sometimes, I do believe that there is still potential for true greatness in America. I believe that Zinn felt the same way. But he also knew that we cannot achieve greatness until we confront the fullness of what this nation can do and has done, both good and bad, and recognize that it is all of her people who are important in shaping her destiny. Not just the rich and the powerful.

In publishing A People’s History, Zinn helped to awaken a great many people to the idea that each person can matter, each one can make a difference.

I should know I’m one of them.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

(This article originally appeared at The One About…)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Howard Zinn dead at 87 (michellemalkin.com)
• Dave Zirin: Howard Zinn: The Historian Who Made History (huffingtonpost.com)
• Howard Zinn’s lesson to us all | Victoria Brittain (guardian.co.uk)
• Fred Branfman: HOWARD ZINN HAS DIED. LONG LIVE “ZINN” (huffingtonpost.com)
• Rory O’Connor: Howard Zinn: People’s President, American Patriot (huffingtonpost.com)
• The One About The Seventh Day Of Blogmas: The One About I Hate To Break It To Our Corporate Masters But This Is The Twenty First Century Not The Nineteenth. (the-one-about.blogspot.com)
• Harvey Wasserman: How the Great Howard Zinn Made All Our Lives Better (huffingtonpost.com)
• Why Judges Should Let Personal Experience Count (newsweek.com)

In the past I’ve talked about my political journey from questioningly clueless, to my flirtation with Libertarianism, to the views I hold today. But one may wonder, what influences the mind and views of a Working Class Progressive? What does such a creature, watch, and read, and listen to? What shaped such a person yesterday, and what inspires them today. I thought it might be of interest to some of my fellow Progressives to offer some answers, at least in terms of what my influences were and are. Rather than just give a list of influences I shall instead focus on one or sometimes two at a time in an occasional series.

Today I’ll be focusing on one of my all time favorite television shows, and one of my biggest influences. Roc.

Roc aired from 1991 to 1994 on Fox. In it’s beginning it was largely a redress of The Honeymooners, with some tweaking and an all African American leading cast. However it was not too long before the shows started to become more nuanced and deal more forth rightly with the realities that working class people in general and blacks in specific faced. While it did exhibit some of the worst tendencies of television shows of the era (a tendency towards soapboxism most noticeably) the quality of the writing and the excellence of the cast generally made even the more openly rhetorical moves considerably more bearable then on another show of lesser quality.

Part of what made the show both watchable and memorable was the fact that unlike most sitcoms that attempt to act as if things like politics don’t intrude on the world of their characters (which is why you are reading about Roc, and not about Roseanne. It’s another show that I love, and was an influence on me, but I chose to highlight the more openly political Roc for this article.)and so you got to see people who inhabited a world much more like our own.

Something else that made the show resonate for me was the lead character. Roc Emerson played by Charles S. Dutton, was a smart, passionate, and realistic man. He understood the way the world worked, and knew that hard work and being a good person was offered no security in a world where he existed at the whims of a system that cared nothing for anyone who could not benefit it. However rather than give into cynicism or lethargy, he focused on making life as decent as possible for himself and those he cared about. While he was not an activist per SE, he was more than willing to stand up for what he thought was right, even if sometimes it was reluctantly. The character was not a redress of the good natured but slightly clueless sit com husband. Nor was he a variation on the television bleeding heart liberal. Roc believed that people who were willing to work and participate in their community should be helped when they needed it, and those who wanted to get ahead through crime, or wait for a hand out, were not worthy of his time.

One of the things that kept the show from devolving like so many of it’s kind do, is that it refused to treat any of the characters as one dimensional. Whether it was Roc’s wife Eleanor, who was intelligent, plain spoken, very respectful of her husband, and yet more than willing to speak up and challenge him if she thought he was in the wrong. Or Roc’s father Andrew, who has a long history of radical activism, and seems to be proud of his son on one level, and disappointed that he’s not more of an activist himself on another. The most “stereotypical” character is Roc’s younger brother Joey. A character who could have been just another “lazy pleasure seeking Lothario” character ala J.J. from Goodtimes, instead is shown as a passionate artist, who in part is practicing hedonism almost as a form of rebellion against a world that he, just like Roc, knows is never going to treat anyone without money fairly.

Sadly Roc is not available on DVD, nor does it appear to be showing anywhere on cable. Which to my mind is a shame. Frankly it saddens me that right now there doesn’t seem to be anything on television that is even remotely about the working class experience. It all seems right now to be about “reality shows” or sitcoms about pretty people, who never have to worry about money, work, or how one candidate or another is going to impact their lives. It’s fun for escapism, but sometimes I want to be inspired rather than escape.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

(This article originally appeared at The One About…)

Related articles by Zemanta

• The One About The Lack Of Educational Opportunity For The Middle Class. (thepoliticus.com)

“Roy boy, sometimes it’s not what you say, but the way you say it.” That was my grandmother’s observation cum judgment, usually delivered after I had said something in a nasty sarcastic tone. (My grandmother would have hated this sarcasm fest we call teh Internets.) When I was younger, I would get deeply annoyed any time she would say that to me. However as I got older I found that like it or not there is a lot of truth to that little bit of folksy wisdom.

But it’s not just tone of voice that means a lot. People also take note of the words you use, and also the timing of what you say.

This brings us to yesterday. It was announced (leaked?) that in his State of the Union speech this Wednesday, President Obama is going to call for a three year freeze on “discretionary” non military spending. And oh did Progressive Nation shat it’s collective self, and then did the arm chair quarter backing begin. Now before I go on too much further I am going to summarize the situation as I understand it. But frankly there are plenty of people out there who will do a much better job than I of explaining what this does, does not, might, mean. Rather it is my intention instead to talk about Why the reaction has been so immediate and violent, and why you might just be seeing more of the same even from the folks who don’t follow politics the way a guy wearing body paint in zero degree weather in an open air arena follows sports.

Basically my understanding is that the freeze will not effect the military budget (naturally, and while I do not think we should be engaging to the degree we are militarily at the same time I don’t wish for anyone to die because of inadequate equipment) nor would it effect “entitlements” already in place, such as Medicare, etc. Further from what I understand it also would not effect Health Care Reform (assuming that we actually get a bill passed but that’s an article for another time), nor would it preclude the possibility of a second, allegedly, jobs focused stimulus. Plus some agencies would have their budget increased, while others would have theirs reduced. And on top of all that, allowances will be made for inflation.

Over all frankly it’s not the worst announcement in the world. It’s not an across the board “not one dollar more” spending freeze, and it seems to take into account that both Healthcare, and Employment are not aggressively addressed it is going to bite the Democrats (and I suspect to a greater extent than they may think) the Republicans in the ass.

But if the announcement is not that horrible why is everyone having a major hissy fit about it? Well that brings us back to the simple truth I learned from my grandmother. “It’s not what you say, it’s the way you say it.”

For a while now Presidents have been “leaking” bits and pieces of The State of the Union. Partly to get a feel for the mood of the nation, and partly to distract from the really bad news that they wait to announce during the address. Usually what gets leaked is little tid bits, that while not inconsequential at the same time are usually not that controversial either. This is not the case here. In tough economic times (which btw these are, and will continue to be, until the Employment situation gets one hell of a lot better) government spending is something that pretty much everybody pays attention to. Some because they are against it and want it stopped. Some because they are for it and think there should be more. But people pay attention. And to say the words, “Spending Freeze” terrifies some people who have visions of Hooverism: The Next Generation. Then to attempt to buy it back by listing all the exclusions, pisses off the people who are convinced that the government would manage to spend a dollar bending over to pick up a dime. A policy as complex as this is looking to be, needed to wait for the actual State of the Union to be announced, so that Obama might have at least some hope of framing his message properly, of putting it across in the right context. Instead with a cold pre-announce, many people have already made up their minds and found Obama wanting, either for not spending enough to get this country back on an even keel, or for “lying” and calling it a freeze when not much is frozen. Which brings me to my next point.

This is part of the reason why Obama should not have let anything slip until the actual address. Because then he would have been free to explain his aims without having to reduce to the gross over simplification inherent in “Spending Freeze”. He could have explained how they were aiming to hold discretionary spending at its current levels by aggressively auditing programs and ending or reducing the funding of the ones that are not doing what they are supposed to do, and only increasing the funding of programs that are effective and need the money to continue to be so. He would have been able to explain how this did not mean there would not be jobs creation programs. But now he has essentially shot himself in the foot, er tongue. “Spending Freeze” rings loud in everyone’s mind and expect the Republicans to pick on his word choices since it’s not across the board. And to an extent they are right. (Where they are wrong is in attempting to lay responsibility for the results from 8 years of Shrubonomics at Obama’s feet, but that’s an article for another day.) It makes him look more than a bit disingenuous, and will result in a lot of people who have been primed already to distrust politicians distrust him even more. Frankly he should have paid better attention to the lessons of history regarding verbal slipperiness taught by Professor Slick Willy C. This isn’t quite “That depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is,” but it’s going to strike many people as being in the same vein. Of course poor phrasing is not the only thing that is hanging around Obama’s neck like an albatross. There is also the announcements timing in relation to other deeply angering events.

Automakers got bailed out. So did banks, and other financial institutions. And for most of the last year economic policy looked like a bizarre fusion of Reagan, Bush and Clinton. “I feel your pain, so here’s a kinder gentler trickle down theory.” In short the too big to fail crowd, got their help while people lost homes, lost jobs, and more, while people were told to hold on cause help was on the way. Well when you’re up to your eyeballs every second counts. Instead of focusing on getting people working again, Obamaco. chose to focus on getting them spending. I’m reminded of a time when I was in grade school and the class bully was making my life miserable. He’d push me and slap at me and tie my shoe laces together, but he was popular with the teachers as well as the students and so anytime I complained I was told I was making something out of nothing. Finally following my fathers sage advice I popped the kid one. All of a sudden the teacher got very concerned about violence, and students picking on one another and “fairness”. This feels very similar. And with the rapacious greed of the super banks only in the very earliest stages of being addressed, and the rights of The Corporatocracy enshrined by the Supreme Court, Obama calling for a “Spending Freeze” frankly feels like a big fat slap in the face to the working class and poor. Not that Obama or anyone else for that matter seems to acknowledge that such beings exist.

In all of the rhetoric especially in the last few weeks, every time you turn around you hear ‘Middle Class’ this and ‘Middle Class’ that. As if they were the only group of people hit hard by the huge turn for the worse the economy took. Frankly the not so subtle message seems to be that the poor and working class are not worth talking to or about. Which is an incredibly stupid mistake since it was exactly those people who were a big part of getting him elected. Sadly what Obama and his people seem to either not realize or not care about, is that these are the very same people who may go back to their prior habits or either not bothering to vote at all, or even worse voting Republican when they do vote, many for no other reason than spite. Which brings me to my final point.

In the beginning of Obama’s term I thought it was wonderfully high minded of him that he wanted to attempt to bring Republicans into the fold, to have them be a part of creating solutions. The Republicans however acted like a bunch of pissy little brats and told Obama what to do with his Bi-Partisanship. Then they attacked Obama for a lack of Bi-Partisanship when he went forth and enacted policies without them. And Obama instead of telling the Republicants to go fuck themselves, continued to try and reach out. Again and again. And again and again he has gotten sneered at and shat on. To many people this “spending freeze” both the idea and the rhetoric is going to appear like yet another attempt to reach some kind of accord with the GOP. The result is that it makes Obama look a great deal like an abused spouse who keeps going back to their abuser. It has I suspect done more than almost anything to lose him the respect of a great many Liberals and Progressives. It might very well be the thing that ends up defining his Presidency and guaranteeing that he will not get re-elected.

Obama has said recently, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president,” The problem is that if he is not able to get out in front of the many severe problems this country still faces he runs the risk of being viewed by history as a really mediocre one term President. Although I suppose if that turns out to be the case he can always go and build houses for poor people with his bare hands. I mean it seems to have worked alright for Jimmy carter.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

This article originally appeared at The One About…

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ex-White House Speechwriters on What Obama Should Say (thedailybeast.com)
• Obama To Diane Sawyer: I Would ‘Rather Be Really Good One-Term President’ (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama targets middle class with new aid plans (msnbc.msn.com)
• Obama Embraces Hooverism (dailykos.com)
• Obama – looking for love in all the wrong places (trueslant.com)
• Geithner reportedly told Wall Street that Obama is sacrificing good policy for politics (americablog.com)
• Obama’s Tiny Idea For Main Street, A Big Spending Freeze For Wall Street (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)

Lately I’ve been on Twitter a fair amount. I’ve found a lot of really great people to follow and I have a lot of really great people following me. Amongst the politically observant, a lot of conversation has been about The Health Care Reform situation. Any time you talk about something like that you inevitably wind up talking about burdens, especially tax burdens. This resulted in the following exchange between myself and fellow Twit @avivao.

@avivao: Government spending doesn’t burden the poor; they don’t make enough to be taxed. Taxes don’t burden the wealthy either.

@toriach: *raises eyebrow*That depends on 1s definition of “burden” Mny wys 2 tax pr bsides directly.Many types of burdens besides monetary.

She then asked for clarification, which I provided in brief. She then asked for more in depth discourse from me, (Frankly I don’t think she has any clue what she’s let herself in for, but far be it from me to refuse a request.) and so I decided the best way to do so, is to write this article. Which quite frankly I think needed done anyway, in hopes of countering some of the bullshit myths about the poor that seem to float on the ether not unlike the smell of a stinky garlic fart.

In addressing the many burdens the poor must bear rather than take an either/or approach, attempting to separate the monetary from the non-monetary, I shall instead be looking at how the two are deeply interconnected. Therefore fair warning the following list has no deeper significance that I am aware of, this is simply the order in which these things came to me.

Boy doesn’t that seem blindingly obvious. Yet most people I think don’t bother to consider this beyond the surface fact. So what exactly does it mean to be born into poverty? It means….

A: That you often live in a household where even if there are two parents neither is able to be available either physically or emotionally as often as may be needed for healthy personal development.

B: That your dietary choices are dictated by the circumstances of your poverty, meaning that consistent access to genuinely nutritious foods so as to aid in your physical and mental development may be scarce.

C: That your daily routine may be dictated by external conditions which make effective social integration and education difficult. This could mean, being essentially a latch key child in an area with no real “safe” peers, and no access to parental assistance with homework, or it could mean that you have to go with one of your parents to their place of work and then try as best you can to sit quietly not bothering anyone, lest it interfere with your parents ability to keep their job.

Furthermore, being born into poverty means that all those little social networking and personal development opportunities that Middle Class children take for granted may be restricted or unavailable to you all together. Add to this the fact that generally a poor child’s clothing, while it may be clean and in good repair is usually noticeably “different”. It might be off by a size, or out of style, or noticeably worn. This can have a crucial impact during the years when one’s self image is being formed. No matter how hard we might fight against it consciously, on a base sub and un-conscious level we are social animals. We have a built in need to fit in, to find acceptance within groups of which we are a part. Plus on the flip side there is the burden the poor face when they have children, suddenly any spare money they may have used to give themselves a slightly better existence, materially speaking now goes to provide the bare basics for their child or children.

For some this means that they may have to quit school before even graduating, so as to get an entry level minimum wage job, and contribute to the household finances. For those that are able to graduate high school it often means that unless they are able to get a scholarship, higher education is all but out of reach without incurring massive debt. Plus often poor people have already made poor life choices which have had major negative consequences, which brings us to….

Now I’m not talking about the dreaded G word, “gangs”. I’m simply talking about the kind of peers one has that have been raised up in a world where one is given almost no inducement to invest in society. Where petty theft and other criminal acts are seen as at worst harmless fun, and at best Heroic. A world where boredom and perception of lack of alternatives often lead to early and repeated sexual activity, drug use and more. So it is possible that a poor person at the age where they might be going to school, are burdened with a child to raise, or a drug habit to deal with, or might even be in jail. Sometimes a poor person is lucky enough to have a reliably positive extra parental influence (a teacher or neighbor) but sometimes that is not enough to fully counter the negative influence they are likely to get from their peer group.

First let me explain what I mean by “meaningful”. I am talking about the kind of employment that allows for genuine personal enrichment, either tangible or intangible. Work that either pays well and allows one to build a personal wealth base from which to craft a decent life, or that contributes to the greater good of ones immediate or larger society and therefore offers personal satisfaction as compensation over and above whatever the monetary remuneration might be.

Most of the poor however are forced to make do with subsistence employment and even that can be difficult to find. The labor pool in which the poor exist is to put it bluntly huge. They are competing with not only people their own age, but also those either younger or older. If one is competing with a younger person, they have a disadvantage in that a younger person can work longer hours and may not have a spouse and children so can get by on lower pay. On the flip side if the competition is older, there is the disadvantage in that they are less schooled in the ways of work and so make mistakes that a more experienced work is not likely too. And of course they are competing with the working and middle class as well, especially as their employment options have been drastically reduced over the decades. Then there is the additional problem that many poor are limited in the range they can travel to find work. They must have either reliable transportation, through personal vehicle, ride sharing, or public transportation, or they must seek something within reasonably easy reach of their home. For many poor people especially those in cities being able to afford to buy and maintain a car, let alone park one is a dream that is more likely to go unfulfilled than not. If they are lucky enough to have a friend or acquaintance that they can travel with, they are beholden to that persons schedule and whims. And living in a country like the United States that seems to consider a robust public transportation system as some kind of affront to decency can mean that bus runs if they exist at all may be sorely limited, especially on the weekends.

Then upon finding a job, the poor are less likely to speak up for themselves in an attempt to either obtain a better position, or pay, or to redress a legitimate grievance. The pressure to keep one’s head down and be happy to just have a job is intense and comes from within as well as without. Also most poor people are highly unlikely to have a job with any kind of benefits.

To be poor is to be with few or no resources, For many the only resources they have are what the government provides. Those resources are constantly being scaled back or stripped down as The ConservaLiberts (Conservative/Libertarians) continue to push their narrative about the evils of “Social” programs, and the inherent immorality of those who would dare to make use of such programs. As a result most poor are without access to healthcare that is free from cultural disincentive to utilize it, and even if they do make use of such programs they are usually only designed to “help” a person once they are in sickness. Measures to help a person make healthier choices or to seek preventative care are almost non existent, and the former is frankly a meaningless feel good sop anyway, as many if not all of a poor persons choices are dictated by their poverty. Furthermore the poor live under the stress of knowing that if they get sick or injured, get fired, or laid off, or just have a reduction in their hours they are liable to wind up with their utilities shut off, or evicted from their residence. Meanwhile they have considerably less money with which to use because of the way that access to options about purchases are denied them, Which brings us to….

Now some would assume I’m talking about things live having a checking or savings account etc. But I’m talking about something even more basic.

Take for example shopping. If a poor person has sufficient resources to purchase their own clothing, or if they have access to vouchers that serve in lieu of cash they often will choose/be forced by circumstances to choose, clothing that is only slightly less expensive than the next most expensive alternative, and considerably less durable.

Let’s take for example pants. Let’s say a single, impoverished male, with no dependents needs pants and shirts. Let’s further suppose he’s one of the lucky ones who has a steady job, although not much pay nor hours. He works five days a week, and because his job does not provide him with a uniform he must have enough clean clothes for a typical work week. So let’s say this means he needs five clean shirts, and three clean pairs of pants. So now he goes to his local Wal Mart and looks at jeans. He could get a medium quality brand for about thirteen dollars. Or he could get a cheaper alternative for eleven dollars. But the material is not as good a quality, and the stitching is to put it bluntly a joke. So one of the pairs wears out in three months rather than the six months or a year possibly more he might get out of the better pair. So getting another cheap pair of pants will cost him another eleven dollars. And so it goes.

The same considerations effect the poor in everything they do. Have a vehicle? Be able to put just enough gas in it to get back and forth to work and have the next “fill up” potentially be at a higher price, plus if one only puts say half of ones cars capacity in the gas tank then cumulative fill ups that would equal full capacity are more expensive than if one filled the car all at once.

This is true of food as well. Rather than being able to look at things solely in terms of per ounce cost, the poor must view things in terms of total cost. So they have to buy smaller amounts, more often, thereby giving them less money to use for other things in the long term.

Then there are the more extreme situations. If a poor person with no savings has a catastrophic situation occur like the vehicle they depend on having a blow out, or their fridge dying then they must obtain money some where, somehow to pay for it. For most if they are lucky they can get an advance on their pay, or borrow from friends. But many are not lucky and must use payday loan associations, or avail themselves of their banks “overdraft” protection, either choice of which can potentially have such high fees as to make their ultimate debt triple or more of what they originally “borrowed”. And that doesn’t even take into consideration those who don’t have a bank account.

All of these are burdens unique to the poor, and to a large extent the Working Class (who are poor in fact but not by the artificial metrics used by the Government) but do not remove them from the burdens of taxes.

First there is income tax. Do the poor usually end up with no tax burden, or so little as to be near none? Yes. But which way should a poor person gamble? Should they have absolutely nothing withheld (which honestly I’m not sure is possible as I believe if one works for another, then something gets withheld even if it’s a small amount, but this is for the sake of argument) and take the risk of misjudging and winding up with a tax burden which could amount to a couple of hundred of dollars or more. Small potatoes to the middle class and rich but a huge burden to the poor. Or do they have a reasonable amount taken out, knowing that money will be unavailable to them until tax time in the form of a refund?

Then there are licensing fees for vehicles, taxes on gasoline, taxes on food and clothing in some states, sales tax etc. These are all taxes that few of even the middle class are able to avoid, and surely none of the poor.

Then there are things that while not strictly taxes are still a financial burden, late fees on utilities and rents and other bills for example.

I could go on, but I shall stop with just one more example.

How crushing must it be to hear at every turn how the fact of your poverty and the limitations it brings is somehow your fault, and how attempts to invoke societal factors is “whining” etc.? From the well meaning narratives about the “Heroic” poor person who held three jobs and studied to become a doctor while raising two children, which serve to make the average person not blessed with that individuals drive, will, or breaks, feel like a slacker, to the more mean spirited stories of welfare cheats, and the “lazy” in our society.

Meanwhile Conservatives, seek to keep the poor divided amongst themselves, to make disinformation prevalent and to frame the Liberal and Progressive agendas in such frightening terms that most of the un, and under educated poor are unlikely to support such agendas, thereby perpetuating their situation, not only for themselves but for their children.

I could go on. I haven’t even touched on the role that Christianity has played in this situation, but I think I’ve sufficiently made by point.

This is why I cannot view the Progressive belief that the rich and to a reasonable extent the middle class should have a larger tax burden. By their very circumstances they are spared the kind of emotional and psychological burdens the poor labor under, let alone the not tax related monetary ones, and have access to a great many more options. And as the bible would remind anyone who proclaims them-self a Christian “God’s judgment is perfectly fair. In this life, some have better opportunities to develop God’s character. Others have greater intelligence or natural abilities. God will apply the principle of “to whom much is given, much is required” with perfect fairness.”

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

This article originally appeared at The One About…

Related articles by Zemanta

• Martin Ford: The Truth About Unemployment — And Why It May Get Worse (huffingtonpost.com)
• Marian Wright Edelman: Children Drop Out and Into Lives of Poverty and Imprisonment (huffingtonpost.com)
• Laid-off workers eye the abyss (msnbc.msn.com)
• James M. Gentile: President Obama’s Leadership in Improving STEM Education (huffingtonpost.com)
• Tom Vander Ark: Fix or Replace Federal Education Policy? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Recession creating a lost generation (msnbc.msn.com)
• States Announce Increases In College Tuition Rates (groundreport.com)
• NYT: States drop test standards for diploma (msnbc.msn.com)
• Minimum wage restaurants (recycleemail.com)
• Carney Shegerian Addresses “Wage Theft” of Low-Wage Workers – Violations of Minimum Wage, Overtime and Other Labor Laws (eon.businesswire.com)

I love all my Progressive Brothers And Sisters. Truly I do. However the more I read, the more I come to understand exactly how deeply out of touch many of them are.

An article I found recently on In These Times website is a perfect example.

In it the author is discussing the death of Liberal Arts colleges and programs. When she makes this statement,

“By making a well-rounded education available only to the elite, we move one step closer to a society of two classes: one taught to think and rule and another groomed to follow and obey.”

I honestly don’t know whether to laugh in her face, or to pat her well meaning head. At this point taking “one step” is irrelevant. It’s a bit like taking one step closer to the kitchen when I’m already standing in the middle of it. Or to put it another way? Well you’ve all heard the phrase, “Closing the barn door after the horse has left.”? Well this is like pulling the fire alarm after the barn has burnt to the ground and the horses have all been shot in the head.

The simple, and simply awful truth is that we have been at this divide for some time now.

You see the problem with attempting to get an education if one is poor or working class, is that once your education is done (assuming you are one of the lucky ones who are even able to finish) then you are usually left with a large amount of debt. Usually this leaves most people with a choice, pursue their dreams, hope they can find a decent paying job until they can find something in their field and take their chances…. Or give up on such silliness as dreams, figure out what field they can stomach that will pay them well, and get their education for that.

This means that for most working class and poor people they gave up on the idea of a traditional liberal arts education a long time ago.

The bigger danger is that now, given how hard it is to find jobs in even the more mundane fields, most of us in the ranks of the working classes and poor are being sent the message that there is really no point in getting an education any way. Better to find a job, any job, and stick with it for as long as they’ll have you. And if you lose it you’d best get another one as quickly as you can. Give up your ridiculous notions and fantasies of improving your lot through education.

That is for your social betters.

Besides everyone knows that too much education makes one into a Commie Homo Child Molester.

Now I don’t harbor any ill feelings towards the articles author. I’m sure she has nothing but the best of intentions. It is simply human nature, that we generally don’t notice a problem until it affects us, if not directly, then at least indirectly by affecting our immediate world.

The truth of the matter is that what is being done to the middle classes to discourage them from pursuing education has already been perfected by our Corporate Masters. They practiced it on minorities, and then they honed it on the working class of all races. Now they are going in for the coup de grace on the rapidly shrinking middle class.

But, hey ya know thanks for the warning and all. I mean better late than never I guess.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

This article also appears at The One About….

Related articles by Zemanta

• The One About The Four Main Reasons Why Most People Don’t Embrace Progressivism. (the-one-about.blogspot.com)
• The One About I’m Sorry Ms. Warren But It’s Already Too Late For The Middle Class. (the-one-about.blogspot.com)
• The One About The Poor Can’t Afford To Care About Climate Change And The Rich Don’t Have To. (the-one-about.blogspot.com)
• The One About Martha Coakley Deserved To Lose And So Do All Democrats! (the-one-about.blogspot.com)

This article originally appeared here.

There are always those who want to cling tightly to something even though it has died. But here at The One About… we believe in embracing change. And an exciting one is clearly on the horizon for American Democracy.

“Even before a landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law expected within days, a series of other court decisions is reshaping the political battlefield by freeing corporations, unions and other interest groups from many of the restrictions on their advertising about issues and candidates.

Legal experts and political operatives say the cases roll back campaign spending rules to the years before Watergate. The end of decades-old restrictions could unleash a torrent of negative advertisements, help cash-poor Republicans in a pivotal year and push President Obama to bring in more money for his party.”

In light of this I say that it’s high time we ended this clearly failed experiment in so called Representative Democracy and moved on to something new.

Fiduciary Democracy!

Now, now, I see you shivering in the corner there. Don’t be afraid of a couple of big words gentle reader. Fiduciary Democracy is not difficult to understand in the least. In fact it is a system that is a billion times simpler than the old failed system.

All you have to remember is this, “One Dollar? One Vote!”

See how simple that is.

And the best part is that this new system will result in pretty much zero disruption to the current system since, well really we’ve pretty much been a Fiduciary Democracy in fact if not name for the last several decades now. This will simply make it official.

I for one am excited and looking forward to such things as the Safeco Anti Anti Trust Bill, and the IBM Freedom From Information Act coming soon to a legislature near me.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ruling could give companies even more clout (msnbc.msn.com)
• CEOs Push Congress On Public Financing Of Campaigns (huffingtonpost.com)
• Michael Wolff: Forget Campaign Finance Laws–This Is the Solution! (huffingtonpost.com)
• Colorado Republicans Look To Use Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision To Overturn State Laws (huffingtonpost.com)
• Sen. Michael Bennet: Corporations and Democracy (huffingtonpost.com)
• Supreme Court Ruling Once Again Desecrates Founders Constitution (groundreport.com)

Welcome to your new AlterNet blog. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Also, be sure to check out blogs by other readers at blogs.alternet.org

Thanks for reading,
The AlterNet Staff