Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich

Author Topic: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich  (Read 95527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« on: December 23, 2010, 01:42:25 pm »
Note: Since I continue to hear economic right-wingers parrot the self-serving myth that the financial meltdown which began in 2008 is primarily the result of "deadbeat borrowers" [read: poor people] taking out loans on things they couldn't afford, I thought I'd post for everyone's thoughtful consideration the following:

----------------------------------

http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/

Subprime Suspects
The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong.

By Daniel Gross
Slate Magazine
Oct. 7, 2008

We've now entered a new stage of the financial crisis: the ritual assigning of blame. It began in earnest with Monday's congressional roasting of Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld and continued on Tuesday with Capitol Hill solons delving into the failure of AIG. On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media), and in certain parts of the op-ed-o-sphere, there's a consensus emerging that the whole mess should be laid at the feet of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failed mortgage giants, and the Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed during the Carter administration. The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade, requires banks—which had a long, distinguished history of not making loans to minorities—to make more efforts to do so.

The thesis is laid out almost daily on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, in the National Review, and on the campaign trail. John McCain said yesterday, "Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer provides an excellent example, writing that "much of this crisis was brought upon us by the good intentions of good people." He continues: "For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—which in turn pressured banks and other lenders—to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity." The subtext: If only Congress didn't force banks to lend money to poor minorities, the Dow would be well on its way to 36,000. Or, as Fox Business Channel's Neil Cavuto put it, "I don't remember a clarion call that said: Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster."

Let me get this straight. Investment banks and insurance companies run by centimillionaires blow up, and it's the fault of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and poor minorities?

These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper—economic know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and, occasionally, by prejudice. Let's be honest. Fannie and Freddie, which didn't make subprime loans but did buy subprime loans made by others, were part of the problem. Poor Congressional oversight was part of the problem. Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem. But none of these issues is the cause of the problem. Not by a long shot. From the beginning, subprime has been a symptom, not a cause. And the notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for poor lending decisions is absurd.

Here's why.

[Continued…]


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Blaming-The-Poor-For-Wall-by-Bob-Ryley-090523-321.html

Blaming The Poor For Wall Street's Mess: The Game Continues

By Bob Ryley
OpEdNews.com
May 25, 2009

Being a political junkie I'm on a lot of mailing lists. A day hardly passes when my mailbox doesn't contain something "political" from one or more advocacy groups. A recent arrival provides a good example of how the right has a problem sorting out facts from fiction when it comes to factors that caused the current financial crisis.

I received the Spring 2009 issue of Cato's Letter published by the nonprofit organization bearing the same name. Of course, this is a "non-profit" that many "for-profit" capitalists like to support because of their unfettered advocacy of free-market economics, limited to no government intervention in the markets, and some civil liberty advocacy thrown in for window dressing.

The current issue of the newsletter contained an article titled "In Defense of Doing Nothing" by Jeffrey Miron. Jeffrey's Widipedia page tells us that he is an outspoken libertarian, former chairman of the Economics Department at Boston University, and currently a professor at Harvard. Quite impressive.

In his Cato Letter article Jeffrey claims that among many factors leading to the current banking and financial crisis, the primary cause was government programs to encourage new home ownership. Miron discusses what he calls "mild interventions" by government to create more first-time homeowners. Then he delivers the kicker. Here are his own words:

"Over time howerver, these mild interventions began to focus on increased home ownership for lower income households. In the 1990s the Department of Housing and Urban Development ramped up pressure on lenders to support affordable housing. In 2003, accounting scandals at Fannie and Freddie allowed key members of Congress to pressure these institutions into substantial risky mortgage lending.. By 2003-2004, therefore, federal policies were generating strong incentives to extend mortgages to borrowers with poor credit characteristics. Financial institutions responded and created huge quantities of assets based on risky mortgage debt."

This exact quote from Miron's article is a text book example of how the right wing invents a distorted reality and gives it credibility by using a non-profit think tank and the presumed expertise of a professor to make it the commentary of a "expert" in the field. If a Harvard professor said it, it must be true. Harvard professor or not, I think we need to look at some facts.

In his new book "The 86 Biggest Lies on Wall Street" author John Talbott described the 2003 versions of Fannie and Freddie as "over-extended and poorly managed." The worst part of the housing bubble, the part that was created by those "huge quantities of assets based on risky mortgage debt" occurred between 2003 and 2006. Fannie and Freddie were largely on the sidelines during this period. Think about that. During the period when most of the questionable loans were made, Fannie and Freddie were on the sidelines.

Further, those "newly created assets" were actually pieces of paper known as Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs). This is a fancy name for a bundle of sub-prime and other loans packaged up and sold to hungry (some might say greedy) investors looking to rake in big profits. Here's the kicker. According to Talbott, loans backed by Fannie and Freddie were, by definition, not sub-prime because they were basically insured.

More importantly, CDOs were Wall Street's invention pure and simple. No government agency pushed the financial industry to create this tool for speculation. Further, no government institution pressued private bond rating agencies to blindly give their seal of approval to such investments. In this case, Wall Street did it to itself. Unfortunately, they were able to use their influence to send the taxpayers the bill for bailing them out.

When you realize this it becomes clear that Miron's whole thesis is claptrap. The big joke in all this is the notion that Fannie, Freddie and other government institutions were pushed by liberal politicians to make risky loans. In fact, almost the exact opposite was true. Both institutions engaged in heavy lobbying, and made over $150 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress to, as John Talbott suggests, get less, not more, regulation and oversight from the government. The government didn't push Fannie and Freddie to do anything. But the execs of these two private "for profit" companies did use their enormous financial power to keep regulators at bay.

This explains how myths and distortions work their way into daily discourse among pundits and politicians and then work they way down and often become part of the public's perception of "conventional wisdom."

[Continued…]


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25430.htm

Finance 101: Blame the Poor
(While Taking Their Money)

By Gordon Arnaut
Information Clearing House
May 12, 2010

Did you know that the poor (and mostly black) people in the US caused the global financial crisis that threw the world economy into its worst slump since the Great Depression of the 1930’s?

I didn’t know that either, until I heard this news from the US media and popular broadcasters like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

This is how it all happened: Special interest groups representing poor people, minorities, and “socialist” elements in the US government “pressured banks to make loans to people who could not afford them, and then the whole thing melted down…” explains Beck, who has a radio and TV audience of several million viewers and listeners.

Thomas Sowell, a right-wing economist for the Hoover Institution and a writer for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine, says that anti-poverty activists “blocked drive-up lanes and made business impossible for banks until they surrendered to demands that they make billions in loans that they wouldn’t otherwise have made.”

God Bless America. The land where truth and freedom prevails.

The only thing I don’t understand is how these poor, black and Hispanic Americans, whose combined share of the national wealth is less than the personal fortune of a few wealthy individuals at the top of the Forbes list, could possibly have exerted such a disproportionate influence on the nation’s economy.

Statistics from the United Nations tell us that the bottom 40 percent of the population of the United States own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. That is about 120 million people. If each and every one of these individuals “forced” the banks to give them mortgages and loans, and then failed to pay them back, the worst that could happen would be a total national loss of 1 percent of wealth.

Is this what happened? That 120 million poor Americans all simultaneously defaulted on their mortgage and loan payments and the economy collapsed because of a 1 percent decline?

Or perhaps the collapse had more to do with the top 1 percent of Americans who own 38 percent of the national wealth? If we do a bit of simple math we see that a member of that top 1 percent—about 3 million wealthy Americans—owns, on average, about 1,500 times as much as a member of the bottom 120 million Americans. Put another way, about 1,500 poor people share a single piece of pie that one wealthy American has all to himself.

Also curious are numbers on who actually lost the most in this Great Recession. According to a study by a professor at the University of California, the average American household lost an astounding 36 percent of their total wealth. But the top 1 percent households lost only 11 percent. So the net result is that the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was it was before the financial crisis. Maybe the top 1 percent should be thanking the poor black folks for “causing” the financial meltdown.

What we do know for sure is that the US government has given more than a trillion taxpayer dollars to big banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, to prevent them from going under. This has led to huge deficits, which has brought demands from the wealthy that the government cut back on social security and Medicare. So while the bank executives continue to reward themselves with multimillion dollar bonuses at the taxpayer’s expense, poor pensioners—who you will see at the grocery store buying marked-down, half-rotten fruit and vegetables—are asked do get by without their medicines and live on bread and water.

Of course the plight of the poor, the sick and the old is of no concern to the slick business media, with their glossy spreads of the “good life” and fawning write-ups of the business elite whose lifestyles would make Marie Antoinette blush—an army of servants, chauffeurs, pilots, prostitutes, maids, cooks, valets, butlers, masseuses, caddies, surgeons…at their beck and call.

[Continued…]

----------------------------------
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2010, 01:59:00 pm »
For those who don't remember (or were never familiar with) this story, check out the following article:

---------------------------------------

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Stewart_ignites_populism_against_CNBC_0305.html

'I find cheap populism oddly arousing' Stewart mocks CNBC

by David Edwards and Rachel Oswald
The Raw Story
March 5, 2009

Daily Show host Jon Stewart took aim Wednesday at newly minted populist and former derivatives trader Rick Santelli, after he abruptly canceled a guest appearance on his show.

Stewart delighted his audience by running through a stream of bad business predictions by Santelli’s own network, CNBC.

Santelli recently garnered conservative applause for a televised rant against President Obama’s proposal to help homeowners in danger of loosing their homes through foreclosure.

“Yea, man, Wall Street is mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore, unless by it you mean $2 trillion dollars in their own bailout money. That they will take,” Stewart sarcastically opined.

Stewart then got his audience riled up over calls for Santelli to come on his show.

“How many people would have liked to see Santelli come on this program?,” called Stewart to rousing cheers from the audience. “Are you listening Rick Santelli?"

Joked Stewart, “I have to say I find cheap populism oddly arousing.”

“So to all you dumb-ass homeowners out there who let your optimism and bad judgment blind you to accepting money that was offered to you by banks – educate yourselves,” Stewart said, in a mockery of comments made by Santelli.

Stewart followed this statement with scenes of some choice reporting by CNBC where commentators and reporters were shown to be heralding the strength of banks like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch not long before they went under and predicting the rebounding of the financial markets last year, though they continued to steadily decline.

“It’s not rocket science homeowners. It’s apparently alchemy,” Stewart said. “You just had to tune into CNBC shows.”

[Continued...]

---------------------------------------

Santelli's "televised rant" was quite revealing, and not just for what it said, but for what it conveniently omitted. This becomes obvious when one considers a few basic facts.

Take the issue of subprime mortgages. How large was the subprime mortgage bubble before the financial meltdown of 2008?

While searching for the answer to that question, I consistently found information such as the following:

"Total subprime mortgage debt outstanding is about $1.3 trillion." -- http://www.cavinessfinancial.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=1

"Although subprime and other risky mortgages were relatively rare before the mid-1990s, their use increased dramatically during the subsequent decade. In 2001, newly originated subprime, Alt-A, and home equity lines (second mortgages or "sec­onds") totaled $330 billion and amounted to 15 per­cent of all new residential mortgages. Just three years later, in 2004, these mortgages accounted for almost $1.1 trillion in new loans and 37 percent of residen­tial mortgages. Their volume peaked in 2006 when they reached $1.4 trillion and 48 percent of new res­idential mortgages." -- http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2127.cfm

Now, if, as some keep insisisting, the financial crisis is entirely (or at least primarily) the fault of subprime mortgages, then how does one explain this?

---------------------------------------

http://www.infowars.com/cost-of-bailout-hits-a-whopping-24-trillion-dollars/

Cost Of Bailout Hits A Whopping $24 Trillion Dollars

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, July 20, 2009

According to the watchdog overseeing the federal government’s financial bailout program, the full exposure since 2007 amounts to a whopping $23.7 trillion dollars, or $80,000 for every American citizen.

The last time we were able to get a measure of the total cost of the bailout, it stood at around $8.5 trillion dollars. Eight months down the line and that figure has almost tripled.

The $23.7 trillion figure comprises “about 50 initiatives and programs set up by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve,” according to the Associated Press.

[Continued...]

---------------------------------------

If the subprime mortgage bubble was never any higher than $1.4 trillion, then why is the cost of the "bailout" so much higher?

Could it be that certain people don't want us asking that question, since an honest search for the true answer inevitably brings one face-to-face with the derivatives bubble?



And could it also be that the reason these same people consistently refuse to even mention the word "derivatives" is that derivatives are entirely the creation of Wall Street speculators, and so cannot be attributed to any of the unwise borrowing decisions that cash-strapped wage-earners may have made -- and are thus of no public relations value to those intent on scapegoating the poor for the crimes of the rich?

Read the following and decide for yourself:

---------------------------------------

IT’S THE DERIVATIVES, STUPID!
WHY FANNIE, FREDDIE AND AIG ALL HAD TO BE BAILED OUT


Ellen Brown, September 18, 2008
www.webofdebt.com/articles/its_the_derivatives.php

“I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men.”
– Sir Isaac Newton, after losing a fortune in the South Sea bubble


Something extraordinary is going on with these government bailouts.  In March 2008, the Federal Reserve extended a $55 billion loan to JPMorgan to “rescue” investment bank Bear Stearns from bankruptcy, a highly controversial move that tested the limits of the Federal Reserve Act.  On September 7, 2008, the U.S. government seized private mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and imposed a conservatorship, a form of bankruptcy; but rather than let the bankruptcy court sort out the assets among the claimants, the Treasury extended an unlimited credit line to the insolvent corporations and said it would exercise its authority to buy their stock, effectively nationalizing them.  Now the Federal Reserve has announced that it is giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG), the world’s largest insurance company, in exchange for a nearly 80% stake in the insurer . . . .

The Fed is buying an insurance company?  Where exactly is that covered in the Federal Reserve Act?  The Associated Press calls it a “government takeover,” but this is not your ordinary “nationalization” like the purchase of Fannie/Freddie stock by the U.S. Treasury.  The Federal Reserve has the power to print the national money supply, but it is not actually a part of the U.S. government.  It is a private banking corporation owned by a consortium of private banks.  The banking industry just bought the world’s largest insurance company, and they used federal money to do it.  Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:

    “The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters.”

Treasury bills are the I.O.U.s of the federal government.  We the taxpayers are on the hook for the Fed’s “enhanced liquidity facilities,” meaning the loans it has been making to everyone in sight, bank or non-bank, exercising obscure provisions in the Federal Reserve Act that may or may not say they can do it.  What’s going on here?  Why not let the free market work?  Bankruptcy courts know how to sort out assets and reorganize companies so they can operate again.  Why the extraordinary measures for Fannie, Freddie and AIG?  

The answer may have less to do with saving the insurance business, the housing market, or the Chinese investors clamoring for a bailout than with the greatest Ponzi scheme in history, one that is holding up the entire private global banking system.  What had to be saved at all costs was not housing or the dollar but the financial derivatives industry; and the precipice from which it had to be saved was an “event of default” that could have collapsed a quadrillion dollar derivatives bubble, a collapse that could take the entire global banking system down with it.

The Anatomy of a Bubble

Until recently, most people had never even heard of derivatives; but in terms of money traded, these investments represent the biggest financial market in the world.  Derivatives are financial instruments that have no intrinsic value but derive their value from something else.  Basically, they are just bets.  You can “hedge your bet” that something you own will go up by placing a side bet that it will go down.  “Hedge funds” hedge bets in the derivatives market.  Bets can be placed on anything, from the price of tea in China to the movements of specific markets.  

“The point everyone misses,” wrote economist Robert Chapman a decade ago, “is that buying derivatives is not investing.  It is gambling, insurance and high stakes bookmaking.  Derivatives create nothing.”  They not only create nothing, but they serve to enrich non-producers at the expense of the people who do create real goods and services.  In congressional hearings in the early 1990s, derivatives trading was challenged as being an illegal form of gambling.  But the practice was legitimized by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who not only lent legal and regulatory support to the trade but actively promoted derivatives as a way to improve “risk management.”  Partly, this was to boost the flagging profits of the banks; and at the larger banks and dealers, it worked.  But the cost was an increase in risk to the financial system as a whole.

Since then, derivative trades have grown exponentially, until now they are larger than the entire global economy.  The Bank for International Settlements recently reported that total derivatives trades exceeded one quadrillion dollars – that’s 1,000 trillion dollars.  How is that figure even possible?  The gross domestic product of all the countries in the world is only about 60 trillion dollars.  The answer is that gamblers can bet as much as they want.  They can bet money they don’t have, and that is where the huge increase in risk comes in.    

Credit default swaps (CDS) are the most widely traded form of credit derivative.  CDS are bets between two parties on whether or not a company will default on its bonds.  In a typical default swap, the “protection buyer” gets a large payoff from the “protection seller” if the company defaults within a certain period of time, while the “protection seller” collects periodic payments from the “protection buyer” for assuming the risk of default.  CDS thus resemble insurance policies, but there is no requirement to actually hold any asset or suffer any loss, so CDS are widely used just to increase profits by gambling on market changes.  In one blogger’s example, a hedge fund could sit back and collect $320,000 a year in premiums just for selling “protection” on a risky BBB junk bond. The premiums are “free” money – free until the bond actually goes into default, when the hedge fund could be on the hook for $100 million in claims.  

And there’s the catch: what if the hedge fund doesn’t have the $100 million?  The fund’s corporate shell or limited partnership is put into bankruptcy; but both parties are claiming the derivative as an asset on their books, which they now have to write down.  Players who have “hedged their bets” by betting both ways cannot collect on their winning bets; and that means they cannot afford to pay their losing bets, causing other players to also default on their bets.  

The dominos go down in a cascade of cross-defaults that infects the whole banking industry and jeopardizes the global pyramid scheme.  The potential for this sort of nuclear reaction was what prompted billionaire investor Warren Buffett to call derivatives “weapons of financial mass destruction.”  It is also why the banking system cannot let a major derivatives player go down, and it is the banking system that calls the shots.  The Federal Reserve is literally owned by a conglomerate of banks; and Hank Paulson, who heads the U.S. Treasury, entered that position through the revolving door of investment bank Goldman Sachs, where he was formerly CEO.  

[Continued...]

---------------------------------------
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2010, 07:09:06 pm »
http://www.thestate.com/2010/02/23/1170297/bauer-not-only-american-blaming.html

Bauer not only American blaming the poor
Economic downturn makes middle class less generous

By ALFRED LUBRANO
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Feb. 23, 2010

Last month, S.C. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said that when the government helps the poor, it's like people feeding stray animals that continually "breed."

And this month, Colorado state legislator Spencer Swalm said poor people in single-family homes are "dysfunctional."

Both statements riled some Americans from the Piedmont to the Rockies and underscored a widely held belief: In tough times, people are tough on the poor.

In an April 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center in Washington, 72 percent agreed with the statement that "poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs." That's up from 69 percent in 2007.

"It's easier to send money to Haiti because you don't have to relate to them directly," said Mariana Chilton, a professor of public health at Drexel University.

The economic downturn has made the middle class less generous, said Guy Molyneux, a partner at Hart Research Associates, a Washington firm that researches attitudes toward the poor.

"People are less supportive of the government helping the poor, because they feel they're not getting enough help themselves," he said.

Matt Wray, a sociologist at Temple University, said these feelings stem from a new vulnerability: "Hatred of the poor is fueled by the middle class's fear of falling during hard times."

Americans don't understand how the poor are victimized by a lack of jobs, inefficient schools and unsafe neighborhoods, experts say.

"People ignore the structural issues - jobs leaving, industry becoming more mechanized," said Yale sociologist Elijah Anderson. "Then they point to the poor and ask, 'Why aren't you making it?'"

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Damascus

  • Guest
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2010, 07:13:56 pm »
And so the fight between the middle class and the poor over what little crumbs the bankers left now begins.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2010, 07:20:56 pm »
And so the fight between the middle class and the poor over what little crumbs the bankers left now begins.

As I've explained elsewhere, one of the key reasons why ruling-class parasites are having such a ridiculously easy time economically ass-raping the masses is that We the People have yet to unite politically against them.

And one of the key reasons a critical mass of us have yet to unite is that far too many of our fellow citizens are too busy looking down their snooty little noses at whoever happens to be further down the economic ladder than they are at the moment.

For instance, how many times have you heard some blame-the-victim-firster wax self-righteous about what "lazy deadbeats" welfare recipients are -- as if to say that, contrary to reality, there are not far fewer job openings than there are people in need of employment?

Until enough of us stop looking for excuses to blame the victims of economic terrorism instead of the terrorists themselves, it will be business as usual for the parasitic ruling elite, and will consequently be just a matter of time before practically all of us are in a bitter, demoralizing struggle for mere survival, not just the bottom 40%.

-------------------------------

“That’s the way the ruling class operates in any society: they try to divide the rest of the people. They keep the lower and the middle classes fighting with each other, so that they, the rich, can run off with all the f**king money.

"Fairly simple thing; happens to work.

"You know, anything different, that’s what they’re gonna talk about: race, religion, ethic and national backgrounds, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality -- anything they can do [to] keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank."


-------------------------------
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Damascus

  • Guest
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2010, 07:37:19 pm »
Yep that's what I meant, Unfortunately I am seeing it work(divide and conquer) as I try to point out the real problem to people from both sides, and get told to STFU. I tried to tell some one about the derivatives and they told me I didn't know WTF I was talking about(upper middle class), I tried to tell some one about the bail outs being bigger then the housing bubble and was called a socialist(lower middle class). College student just say I'm a big fat stupid conspiracy head, for saying the federal reserve is private. They say that since the president appoints a board member ever two years it is the peoples fault for electing that president. Maybe I am not that great of a debater.

Offline Valerius

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,713
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2010, 07:46:25 pm »
Yeah, I am a libertarian, always have been. And I hear it all the time from those who really do not truly understand the philosophy. This kind of stuff and even modern eugenics arguments. They do not realize they are playing right into the divide and conquer pysops. I am hoping that they remain a minority within those who think they are on the right.
"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."  -Frederick Douglass

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,865
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2010, 08:03:16 pm »
For instance, how many times have you heard some blame-the-victim-firster wax self-righteous about what "lazy deadbeats" welfare recipients are -- as if to say that, contrary to reality, there are not far fewer job openings than there are people in need of employment?

I still get the 'lazy' and 'jealous' rhetoric thrown at me regardless of statistics. Plus some crap about unadvertised jobs.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2010, 01:22:13 pm »
Yep that's what I meant, Unfortunately I am seeing it work(divide and conquer) as I try to point out the real problem to people from both sides, and get told to STFU. I tried to tell some one about the derivatives and they told me I didn't know WTF I was talking about(upper middle class), I tried to tell some one about the bail outs being bigger then the housing bubble and was called a socialist(lower middle class). College student just say I'm a big fat stupid conspiracy head, for saying the federal reserve is private. They say that since the president appoints a board member ever two years it is the peoples fault for electing that president. Maybe I am not that great of a debater.

Or maybe you were simply casting pearls before swine. That would be my bet.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2010, 01:33:38 pm »
Yeah, I am a libertarian, always have been. And I hear it all the time from those who really do not truly understand the philosophy. This kind of stuff and even modern eugenics arguments. They do not realize they are playing right into the divide and conquer pysops. I am hoping that they remain a minority within those who think they are on the right.

If they are the "minority," then the majority are virtually silent by comparison, because in my experience the majority of self-styled "conservatives" and "libertarians" (particularly those who subscribe to the let-everything-collapse Austrian School of economics) tend to exude just that sort of snooty, aristocratic attitude whenever the issue of poverty amid plenty is brought up.

And here's why:

------------------------------

"In a society where unjust division of wealth gives the fruits of labor to those who do not labor, the classes who control the organs of public education and opinion—the classes to whom the many are accustomed to look for light and leading, must be loath to challenge the primary wrong, whatever it may be. This is inevitable, from the fact that the class of wealth and leisure, and consequently of culture and influence, must be, not the class which loses by the unjust distribution of wealth, but the class which (at least relatively) gains by it.

"Wealth means power and ‘responsibility,’ while poverty means weakness and disrepute. So in such a society the class that leads and is looked up to, while it may be willing to tolerate vague generalities and impracticable proposals, must frown on any attempt to trace social evils to their real cause, since that is the cause that gives their class superiority. On the other hand, the class that suffers by these evils is, on that account, the ignorant and uninfluential class, the class that, from its own consciousness of inferiority, is prone to accept the teachings and imbibe the prejudices of the one above it; while the men of superior ability that arise within it and elbow their way to the front are constantly received into the ranks of the superior class and interested in its service, for this is the class that has rewards to give. Thus it is that social injustice so long endures and is so difficult to make head against.

"Thus it was that in our Southern States while slavery prevailed, the influence, not only of the slaveholders themselves, but of churches and colleges, the professions and the press, condemned so effectually any questioning of slavery, that men who never owned and never expected to own a slave were ready to persecute and ostracize any one who breathed a word against property in flesh and blood—ready, even, when the time came, to go themselves and be shot in defense of the ‘peculiar institution.’

"Thus it was that even slaves believed abolitionists the worst of humankind, and were ready to join in the sport of tarring and feathering one."

-- Henry George, Protection or Free Trade, pp. 294-6

------------------------------
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,755
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2010, 01:50:24 pm »
Geo,

Excellent thread and monumental research, my good sir!!

Tight money makes those who crave the worthless paper think that depopulation is a good idea... they become proponents of the global eugenic schema a divide and conquer scenario if there ever was one ... at the expense of the bottom 49 percent who are the target... whoa! The Founders, in particular Jefferson, are spinning...

JTCoyoté

"I prefer to be true to myself, even at the
hazard of incurring the ridicule of others,
rather than to be false, and to incur my
own abhorrence."
~Frederick Douglass

Offline ddepping

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • acne no more
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2011, 01:01:51 pm »
This is the best thread I have read in ages ...It just makes me so very ANGRY and SAD!! >:(

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2011, 01:50:01 pm »
Geo,

Excellent thread and monumental research, my good sir!!

Thanks! Hopefully it will enable people to know aristocratic propaganda when they see or hear it.

This is the best thread I have read in ages ...It just makes me so very ANGRY and SAD!! >:(

Getting "mad as hell" is the all-important first step.

The second step is to channel that anger in a positive, proactive, freedom-enhancing direction.

Hence the following thread:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162212.0
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Medina

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2011, 04:19:23 am »
Hello,

Thanks for your post. Its a great one, you also might want to read Webster G. Tarpleys book about Surviving the Cataclysm, he also states that not subprime mortages were the cause, but derivatives of the zombie banks.


Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2011, 10:58:09 am »
As I've explained elsewhere, one of the key reasons why ruling-class parasites are having such a ridiculously easy time economically ass-raping the masses is that We the People have yet to unite politically against them.

And one of the key reasons a critical mass of us have yet to unite is that far too many of our fellow citizens are too busy looking down their snooty little noses at whoever happens to be further down the economic ladder than they are at the moment.

"You go back hundreds of years to sharecroppers. Economically, many historians wrote that...they were worse off than black slaves here in the U.S. Because the slave was supposedly property, you wanted to keep them alive. Sharecroppers died of malnutrition many times in bad years. And they had to sign a contract to buy their clothes, their sugar, their flour -- everything -- from the company store. You've heard the song, 'I owe my soul to the company store.' When the blacks got supposedly 'free' after the Civil War, many of them just became the lowest rung of the sharecroppers. Most Americans have ancestors who came over here as white slaves. Oh, it was only a seven-year indentured servitude, but you generally never got off of the plantation. But, oh, don't worry, poor whites still enjoyed looking down on blacks. It's all about a snobbery: 'Oh, at least I get to look down on somebody.' And that's why only around 2% of whites in the colonies -- then later in the North and the South -- actually owned slaves, but over 90% (in surveys that were done at the time) of poor whites supported it early on...because they got to look down on somebody. And it wouldn't even matter if the black slave going and picking something up in town for the master was even healthier and had a little bit more fat on their belly than the sharecropper wearing rags, he could still order the black around. And, again, this is all what you see at the country clubs, and what you see in cliques in schools -- humans love tribal hierarchies. And the TSA and the government system and the corporate system gives them all these little power-tripping hierarchies to feed on people and to perch on top of them and control them."

-- Alex Jones, The Alex Jones Show radio broadcast, 4/29/11, 1st hour
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2011, 02:22:52 pm »
"When the blacks got supposedly 'free' after the Civil War, many of them just became the lowest rung of the sharecroppers. Most Americans have ancestors who came over here as white slaves. Oh, it was only a seven-year indentured servitude, but you generally never got off of the plantation. But, oh, don't worry, poor whites still enjoyed looking down on blacks. It's all about a snobbery: 'Oh, at least I get to look down on somebody.' And that's why only around 2% of whites in the colonies -- then later in the North and the South -- actually owned slaves, but over 90% (in surveys that were done at the time) of poor whites supported it early on...because they got to look down on somebody."

-- Alex Jones, The Alex Jones Show radio broadcast, 4/29/11, 1st hour

"...I am firmly convinced, as I have already said, that to effect any great social improvement, it is sympathy rather than self-interest, the sense of duty rather than the desire for self-advancement, that must be appealed to. Envy is akin to admiration, and it is the admiration that the rich and powerful excite which secures the perpetuation of aristocracies. Where tenpenny Jack looks with contempt upon ninepenny Joe, the social injustice which makes the masses of the people hewers of wood and drawers of water for a privileged few, has the strongest bulwarks."

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2011, 11:06:57 am »
Since it’s long been fashionable among economic right-wingers (particularly if they’re in the top 20%) to dehumanize and, in many cases, outright demonize the poor, I thought I’d help shatter some of the self-serving myths to which this shameful trend has given rise by posting the following excerpt:

---------------------------------

Perhaps the best way to define poverty is to listen to people who considered themselves poor. I attempted to do that in 1994 and 1995, working with a group of women from the Young Mothers Program in the South Bronx who agreed to help me with this book. Our first task was to define poverty.

We sat in a circle of folding chairs, and we were all proper people, serious about the work. Sometimes the women were tired, for we met at the end of the day and they had frequently endured the unrelieved stress of a confrontation session. Now and then children came into the room, and there was rarely a time when someone in the group did not have an appointment to keep elsewhere, for the poor, as they said, do not choose their lives. In that way, the conversations we held were extraordinary, for there was nothing mandatory about them.

Over time, the aspects of poverty, as described by the women, fell into categories: privation and oppression, which produced different feelings in them.

Privation came first, told by H, a big woman, whose hair was dyed in a curious way, tiny blond braids on a cap of black. She had lost many teeth, so that her speech was both slurred and sibilant, and because her back was injured, she could not move with grace. Of all the women in the group, H wore the weariest clothes, the most ill-fitting clothes. In summer, her feet were tucked into ragged shoes, like bedroom slippers, but she gave the appearance of being barefoot.

“Poor is a little girl who worked in the fields all day,” she said, remembering Barbados, where she was born. Her words came in the form of a litany, loud at first, diminishing, and finally lost in tears.

“Poor is all day in the dirt.
“Poor is too tired to eat.
“Poor is walking barefoot on a tar road in the hot sun.
“Poor is a house with no electricity.
“Poor is no water in the house.
“Poor is going outside to use the toilet.
“Poor is not having a mother to take care of you.
“Poor is being carried around in a fish basket when you’re a baby.
“Poor is a little girl making rice for her grandma, that little, hard rice we have in Barbados, cooking the rice, but not cooking it right. Grandma says the rice is good, but you know it’s hard. I didn’t put enough water in the pot. The rice was hard.”

Sobbing took her breath, and H could not speak any more. The little woman who sat beside her, dark and thin, wizened before she was thirty, rubbed her back and soothed her, cooed to her. It was a long time before anyone else spoke.

From the other side of the room, M, a fat-faced, puffy, pallid woman of forty who had lost all her five children to the Child Welfare Agency, spoke. She poured out the words, running the sentences together in a low, thick-ended voice made coarser by the hard vowels and perverse final consonants of Puerto Rican Spanish violated by the New York streets. “I was so poor when I was growing up that all my teeth rotted by the time I was five years old, because I never had a toothbrush. My ass got all red and bleeding, because I didn’t have no toilet paper to wipe myself. At night, in bed, I couldn’t lay still, I couldn’t sleep, because I had nothing to eat for five days. I used drugs, I sold myself, I did anything just to stay alive.”

She, too, silenced the room. Like H, she brought tears to the other women’s eyes, but no one touched M, no one soothed her. She sat alone, she made a distance between herself and the rest.

Other women spoke of hunger and crowding, but hunger was the common thread. It sorrowed them, it debilitated them, it left them weeping. Hunger meant tragedy, a fate that could not be overcome no matter how they tried; hunger meant that nothing more could be found, it implied an end to dreaming. They resigned themselves to hunger, in the way that the dying no longer feel their pain.

They reserved their anger for the other poverty: They raged against oppression, which they associated with the game. “It makes me feel low-class,” one woman said, as if to describe the rules of the game, “not upper-class, not middle-class, low-class; I can’t have self-esteem when I’m low-class.”

“Poor is homelessness,” P said. She looked around the room, as if to gather the agreement of the others, who set their jaws and looked ahead and nodded, for most had known the streets and the shelters; they could recall a night, a week, a season in the park. Nothing spoke so clearly of the relative world as homelessness; the word itself existed only to remark the existence of something better.

When the silence had made its point, she closed out the others for a moment, and spoke directly to me. She began in anger: “I got a nine-month-old baby, a nine-month-old daughter and a twelve-year-old son. I’m f*kin homeless, living in a shelter. All of these things. It’s pressure and it’s stressful. It’s stressful. I’m actually using you, Earl, I’m actually using you to vent, because you know I don’t get a chance to say, ‘I’m sick of being poor. I’m sick of being a single parent, I’m sick of being an addict.’ So, I’m using you, Earl. Help me get my daughter into day care which is safe, get me back to school. I don’t want to be on welfare. Can you tell them that I don’t want to be on welfare? My life’s goal is not to be a welfare bum bitch all my life.”

A soldier’s anger came into the room, and remained, for relative poverty isolates the rich from the poor, the poor from each other. In the game, everyone plays against everyone else. There was no more touching.

They turned to education; everyone agreed that lack of education was a form of poverty, but it produced no discussion, no passion, for education of the kind the winners know was too far away, which made it cool and beautiful but unreachable.

No matter who tried to define poverty, the welfare department turned up as an aspect of being poor.

“Food and shelter,” A said, “became I have a education. I finished high school. I know how to read and I know how to write. I can get a job, but if don’t have food and shelter, even if I have a education, I’m not gonna have what I need. I define poor as being on welfare, because without welfare my rent wouldn’t be paid. If I wasn’t getting no welfare or anything like that, I wouldn’t have no shelter and those food stamps wouldn’t be comin to me and I wouldn’t be able to eat. That is poor, not knowin where your next meal is gonna come from, havin to depend on society or welfare. For me that’s poor.”

C carried the discussion of the welfare system on to the issue of what wounded most deeply. She spoke, as always, in a blunt, irrefutable way, using words as if they were bludgeons made of mixed languages and Brooklyn streets. She was the one who found the heart of things, the bitter one, the one who had been to prison, who had touched the bottom the others feared. They studied her, as if to see how long she could avoid destruction.

“Right now, I’m living in a place that ain’t mine,” she said. “Even though I get welfare, it’s not enough. What if they cut you off?”

The rest of the day followed her. The others could not let go of the idea of the absurd in their lives: almost everything intended for them was used against them. “What if they cut you off? What if the computer makes a mistake?”

No woman could escape the question of the differential, the relativity described with such eloquence by the counter and the desk in the welfare office.

M said, “They act like they’re givin us their paychecks. They look down at you. It’s like my worker, she says, ‘Well, who knows what you’ve been doin with that money?’ So I says, ‘Let me tell you somethin, sweetheart, I worked, I pay taxes just like you’re doin right now. You’re no better than me. And it don’t give you the right to talk to me any way you can. I can change workers. I can report you. And if that person doesn’t want to do right, I’ll report that person.’”

Her voice had risen to a shout by the end, color had come into her pallid cheeks. And then she fell from anger to defeat: “In reality, they treat you like you’re a piece of shit,” she said, “like you’re just a roach, a cockroach. You don’t mean shit. They don’t care about you.”

C rescued her: “For me, I give an example. I’m on my own case budget, that’s what it’s called. I had my own apartment. They were only give me two fifteen. Where in the hell would I find a apartment for two fifteen unless it’s tore up? It would have to be all broken down. I feel that’s unfair, even though the welfare is always doin it. By starting us off and paying two fifteen a month, that’ll bring down our self-esteem even more. I have to move all the way, way into the ghetto, maybe where it starts.” Everyone laughed, even M.

P leaned into the conversation again. Although she was not as large as some of the other women, she gave the impression of weight, like a Henry Moore statue, smooth and dense, the immovable occupier of a certain place in the world. She said, “I know it’s big business who’s on his [the case worker’s] back, saying we’re tired of picking up the slack, we’re tired of paying for women laying down having baby after baby for the same old chump. Goin down to these welfare systems and sayin, ‘No, I don’t know who my baby’s father is. No, I don’t know this. No, I don’t know that.’ Because the welfare system is set up like that. You can’t go in there and say, ‘Yeah, John Brown. I got four kids with John Brown, and me and him is layin up in this Section Eight apartment.’ It don’t work like that. John Brown has to disappear from the scene, like four years ago. You ain’t never seen the niggah, nothing but it ain’t bullshit. I need your help, this is how desperate I am. We all know and understand that all that shit is lies. It’s lies, but this is what you’re forced to do. That’s what I mean when I said it’s degrading. It does not promote a sense of family. I can’t go down to a social worker and say, ‘My man did not graduate from high school, therefore doesn’t have what it takes to get certain job skills, therefore does not have a job. I love him. He’s the father of my children. I would like to keep our family together. Can you please help us?’ Look, you can’t go in there with that. That nigger got to be twenty miles north of West Motherf*ckland and nobody can’t find him. And you have to be totally desperate as to be deprived and degraded.”

A said, “I think that poorness have to do with the generations. It start from whoever was way back.”

“I say poor is the spirit,” D said. “If you feel poor in the spirit you ain’t gon do nothin.”

The list grew during the conversations: The compassionate union of H’s description of desperate poverty never returned; absurdity stayed in the air, always the enemy, attacked by C and others, too. P changed the understanding of absurdity and the thrust of the conversation from then on, when she said, “People don’t just wake up with this idea: Oh, I wanna be poor or I wanna get food stamps or I wanna live in the ghetto. Nobody grows up with this idea that you just wanna stay at this one level. You know, there are certain things that happen that set up the dynamics so you stay right there, in the ghetto.”

-- Earl Shorris, New American Blues, pp. 32-37



---------------------------------
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Blaming the Poor is as American as Apple Pie
« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2011, 07:41:09 pm »
http://campusprogress.org/articles/blaming_the_poor_is_as_american_as_apple_pie/

Blaming the Poor is as American as Apple Pie



Campus Progress
July 17th, 2010

Jamelle Bouie wrote a really interesting post called “Poor Bashing: the New American Pastime.” The post provides a good window into one of the most shameful aspects of our nation’s political culture: The callous attitude toward impoverished citizens.

An excerpt:

    Not to belabor the point, but it really seems like there is a growing callousness and hostility to the poor and disadvantaged in our society….What’s strange, and offensive, is this belief that we should cut unemployment benefits because, in Sen. Diane Feinstein’s words, “how long do you continue (unemployment benefits) before people just don’t want to go back to work at all?” Conservatives have joined in on poor-bashing too; Sen. Orrin Hatch has proposed mandatory drug tests for those receiving unemployment insurance — because everyone knows that unemployed people are drug addicts — and there’s been a recent spate of conservative writers attacking food and nutrition aid to poor kids.

    Exactly, the real problem isn’t the long-term unemployment crisis — which could leave a huge class of people without the necessary skills to work — it’s those bums too lazy to save their jobs from the financial crisis. If those people didn’t want to be unemployed, they should have never worked in the first place, and if those kids didn’t want to be hungry, they should have had the wherewithal not to be born so damn poor, or something.

My only quibble with Bouie’s piece is that blaming the poor for their condition isn’t a “new pastime”. Here is an 1809 explanation for poverty from the puritanical Humane Society: “by a just and inflexible law of Providence, misery is ordained to be the companion and punishment of vice.” One hundred years later Baptist preacher Walter Rauschenbusch proclaimed that providing aid only hurts the poor: “But when they have once learned to depend on gifts, the parasitic habit of mind grows upon them, and it becomes hard to wake them back to self-support.”

This attitude remained a powerful current in the American understanding of poverty up through the New Deal. But even FDR, the president who did more for the poor than any other paid homage to the traditional belief. “Dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber,” he proclaimed in his proposal for the Works Progress Administration, which kept millions from poverty during the Depression.

Now, in the midst of the fallout from the Great Recession we are choosing to shunt them aside instead. The “blame the poor” explanation is going strong. According to a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, an April 2009 Pew study showed 72 percent of those polled agreed that “poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs”. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh recently proclaimed that people on food stamps "buy Twinkies, Milk Duds, potato chips, six-packs of Bud, then head home to watch the NFL on one of two color TVs and turn off their cell phones, and that's poverty in the U.S." (Of course food stamps can’t be used to buy alcohol; but this is Rush, so accuracy isn’t a concern.)

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/scapegoating-poor

Scapegoating the Poor

Let’s start blaming the plutocrats, not their victims

by Ed Finn
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
May 1, 2010

There’s an old African proverb that is becoming uncomfortably apt to apply to human behaviour in Canada: “As the waterhole gets smaller, the animals get meaner.”

In other words, as the food, water, and other basic resources dwindle, so does the willingness to share. The sense of community and cooperation is replaced by an ugly survival-of-the-fittest mentality.

A big difference, however, exists between what happens at a shrinking waterhole in Africa and what happens in Canada when jobs disappear, incomes fall or stagnate, and government services are cut back. The African waterhole gets smaller because there’s a drought; it’s a natural and unavoidable disaster. In Canadian society, however, the necessities of life for the weakest among us are being deliberately reduced or withheld.

Our welfare “waterhole” is being systematically siphoned away, its contents transferred from the pockets of the poor into the bank accounts and stock portfolios of the rich.

There is no shortage of money in Canada. Our GDP — the country’s entire financial output — has doubled since the 1970s. Corporate executives and major investors still wallow in wealth, much of it coming from taxpayer-funded government bailouts. The big banks still post record profits. Our billionaires may have lost a few million in the financial meltdown, may even have to delay buying their next yacht or private jet, but they know their fortunes are secure and will continue to grow.

A barbaric maldistribution of income that leaves millions of their fellow citizens destitute doesn’t bother them in the least. As long as the income needed to help the neediest is diverted to them instead, they will make sure their political lackeys block any proposed reforms.

In the past, picking on the weak and poor was not something that could be done with impunity. Prior to the onset of corporate globalization and neoliberalism, most people — even many of the rich themselves — would be shocked by today’s obscenely inequitable distribution of income and the widespread misery it inflicts. Today, however, as food is snatched out of the mouths of hungry kids, many people shrug it off as an unavoidable (if regrettable) part of the capitalist system.

As for the commercial media, instead of exposing and deploring the plight of the hundreds of thousands mired in poverty, they either ignore them or maliciously search for and denounce the few people on welfare who are abusing the system. Although they are clearly the exceptions, they are depicted as typical “welfare bums,” too lazy to work and content to live parasitically off the hard work of others.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
In hard times, Americans blame the poor
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2011, 07:31:09 pm »
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011157627_poor23.html

In hard times, Americans blame the poor

South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said last month that when the government helps the poor, it's like people feeding stray animals that continually "breed."

By Alfred Lubrano
The Philadelphia Inquirer
February 22, 2010

PHILADELPHIA —

South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said last month that when the government helps the poor, it's like people feeding stray animals that continually "breed."

And Colorado state legislator Spencer Swalm this month said poor people in single-family homes are "dysfunctional."

Both statements riled some Americans and underscored a widely held belief: In tough times, people are tough on the poor.

In an April 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center, 72 percent agreed with the statement that "poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs." That's up from 69 percent in 2007.

"The economic downturn has made the middle class less generous toward others," said Guy Molyneux, a partner at Hart Research Associates, a Washington, D.C., firm that researches attitudes toward the poor. "People are less supportive of the government helping the poor, because they feel they're not getting enough help themselves.

"It's a divided country, splitting on a fault line — those who think the poor are poor because they don't try enough, and those who think the poor simply need help."

Matt Wray, a sociologist at Temple University, agreed: "Hatred of the poor is fueled by the middle class's fear of falling during hard times."

Americans don't understand how the poor are victimized by a lack of jobs, inefficient schools and unsafe neighborhoods, experts say.

"People ignore the structural issues — jobs leaving, industry becoming more mechanized," said Yale sociologist Elijah Anderson, renowned for his study of the Philadelphia poor. "Then they point to the poor and ask, 'Why aren't you making it?'"

Americans tend to blame the victim, according to Angela Sutton, 33, of Northeast Philadelphia. "People think we like mooching off the system, and don't see the circumstances that put us here," said Sutton, who was shot in the stomach at 14 and raped by a relative the next year while growing up in North Philadelphia.

A former welfare recipient, Sutton is an unmarried mother of two children living on disability insurance and food stamps. "They think we're lazy and want a free ride."

Talk radio has especially galvanized against the poor.

In June, conservative Rush Limbaugh denigrated food stamps, which hunger experts have said are vital to poor children.

With "food care," as Limbaugh put it, the "obese" poor "buy Twinkies, Milk Duds, potato chips, six-packs of Bud, then head home to watch the NFL on one of two color TVs and turn off their cellphones, and that's poverty in the U.S." (What he didn't say is that food stamps can't be used to buy alcoholic beverages.)

Underlying negative attitudes toward the poor, experts say, are prejudices toward minorities, disproportionately among the indigent.

Twenty-five percent of African Americans, 23 percent of Latinos and 9 percent of whites live in poverty. Overall, 13 percent of the U.S. population is poor.

The United States "is very heterogeneous with very little ability to empathize with groups that are poor," Washington economist Isabel Sawhill said. That general lack of empathy can inspire anger toward the poor, especially from the right, experts say.

"It's easier to send money to Haiti because you don't have to relate to them directly," said Mariana Chilton, hunger expert and professor of public health at Drexel University.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Too easy to blame the victim
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2011, 04:40:51 pm »
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/your-hip-pocket/too-easy-to-blame-the-victim/story-fn6saok9-1226062746785

Too easy to blame the victim

Karina Barrymore
Herald Sun
May 25, 2011

It's so easy to blame the victim. We seem to do it in many walks of life.

The children who are bullied at school should stand up for themselves. The person who lost their job should have worked harder. The investor who got ripped off shouldn't have been so greedy.

But two major reports released this week could prove an eye opener for many of the "blamers'' among us.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Demonizing the Poor for being Poor
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2011, 07:42:48 pm »
http://www.stlamerican.com/news/columnists/article_ce6d2f20-8616-11e0-8f77-001cc4c002e0.html

Demonizing the Poor for being Poor

By George E. Curry, NNPA Columnist
The St. Louis American
May 24, 2011

In the 1960s, we had the War on Poverty. In 2011, we're now seeing a War on People Who Live in Poverty.

One of the most callous examples of this occurred on - you guessed it - Fox News. Charles Payne, in a business segment, acknowledged that anti-poverty programs, food stamps, and unemployment insurance were "good programs", but then went on to attack recipients of those programs.

"I think the real narrative here, though, is that people aren't embarrassed by it," Payne said. "People aren't ashamed by it. In other words, there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on food stamps; there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on unemployment for six months, let alone demanding to be on for more than two years... No longer is the man being told to look in the mirror and cast down a judgment on himself; it's someone else's fault. So, food stamps, unemployment, all this stuff is something that they probably earned in some indirect way."

The host of the business show, Stuart Varney, called food stamps, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit "a form of welfare, income redistribution" benefiting people with an "entitlement mentality."

Varney and Payne, in effect, dismissed the findings by the National Bureau of Economic Research that showed that such programs keep 1 in 6 Americans out of poverty, mostly the elderly, the disabled, and the working poor. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, without those programs, the poverty rate would double.

As states continue to struggle to balance their budgets, as required by their constitutions, some state lawmakers are directing their anger at the poor.

In Kentucky, a Republican state representative has introduced a bill that, if passed, would require random drug testing for all adults receiving welfare, food stamps or Medicaid.

Rep. Lonnie Napier, of Lancaster, Ky., introduced Kentucky House Bill 208 that would immediately terminate benefits to recipients who fail a drug test. He told the Huffington Post, "This program is gonna save us a lot of money, because there's gonna be a lot of people showing up on illegal drugs and they will lose their assistance."

There is no evidence that people benefiting from anti-poverty programs are any more prone to becoming drug addicts than those who do not receive such aid. Professor Harold Pollack, of the University of Chicago, pointed out that Michigan implemented a mandatory drug testing program 10 years ago at three of its welfare offices. Of the 258 welfare applicants tested, only 21 tested positive for illegal drugs. Of the 21 failing, 18 tested positive for marijuana.

Newt Gingrich, who is testing the GOP presidential waters, has tried to indirectly inject race into his campaign. Speaking to a group of Republicans in his home state of Georgia, he said:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline America2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,308
  • Romans 10:9-10 King James Version
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2011, 07:50:15 pm »
Yeah, growing up as a boy in the 80's, all I heard from the white folks around me was that it was all the fault of the black folks.

I mean why in the world don't people bother to do their OWN research nowdays?

I was on my way back from Cleveland the other day from a good weekend there, and we were pulled over for those TSA scanners. I initially hesitated, but to avoid all the conflicts with my folks, I reluctantly gave in(and they almost felt my you-know-what when they padded me down). I tried telling them about how draconian this agenda really is, and told them how "A Brave New World"/"1984" are emerging right before our very eyes. They thought I was completely nuts, and said how we really need this to catch Al-Qaeda. Then I told them how Ron and Rand Paul are pretty much the only ones on Capitol Hill speaking out against this, and they said how anti-American they are. I even tried to show them bible verses how this is being predicted to come to pass. They still wouldn't listen.

Again, noone bothers to do their own research nowdays. Even the bible says the Boreans searched the scriptures daily to see if everything they hear is so or not.

Offline skeisler

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
    • ScottKeisler.com
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2011, 08:42:03 pm »
To me, on an issue like this, the conservatives appeal to law and discipline and responsibility without love and charity and brotherhood.  The liberals appeal to love and charity and brotherhood at the expense of law, discipline, and responsibility.  Is there a way we can lovingly draw a line in the sand for those who abuse the system and say if you don't work you don't eat.  And is there a way we can summon the compassion and the charity to lend a hand to those who are enduring a genuine hardship?  We need simultaneous law and love, not one or the other peddled through political pandering and cooked stats.     

Offline Valerius

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,713
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2011, 08:58:56 pm »
Max Weber's peculiar take on Calvinism.
"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."  -Frederick Douglass

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #25 on: May 26, 2011, 03:52:09 pm »
To me, on an issue like this, the conservatives appeal to law and discipline and responsibility without love and charity and brotherhood.  The liberals appeal to love and charity and brotherhood at the expense of law, discipline, and responsibility.  Is there a way we can lovingly draw a line in the sand for those who abuse the system and say if you don't work you don't eat.

In my experience, the people who ask this question are in either blissful ignorance or willful denial of the fact that, in today's corporate fascist economy, there are far fewer job openings than there are people in need of "work."

As was reported here last December:

    "Right now there are approximately 5 unemployed Americans for every single job opening."

And there's an obvious class bias behind the tendency to insist that the "don't-work-don't-eat" rule be applied first and foremost to those at the bottom of the economic ladder instead of those at the top. Indeed, it's only when someone like myself brings up the issue of how the economic parasitism engaged in by ruling-class oligarchs utterly dwarfs any such parasitism engaged in by the poor that one gets the usual grudging, obligatory response of, "Huh? Oh, yeah yeah, them too."  ::)

Is it really asking too much to devote at least most of our righteous indignation to the trillions in unearned wealth and income being appropriated by ruling-class parasites instead of to the comparative crumbs being tossed as an insulting afterthought to the disenfranchised lower classes?

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Rebelitarian

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,991
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #26 on: May 26, 2011, 04:17:13 pm »
Neo-con radio is subsidized by the very FED that is bringing America into financial ruin.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Stop blaming poor for economic ills
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2011, 03:04:39 pm »
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20110710/OPINION02/107100306/Stop-blaming-poor-economic-ills?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7Cs

Stop blaming poor for economic ills

The Clarion-Ledger
July 8, 2011

A common explanation for the poor and the extent of poverty in our society focuses on the individual, as some recent letters state.

People are poor because they are lazy, lack motivation to get the proper education or skills, do not want to work, and so on. These are constant themes in our thinking about the poor and in some recent letters.

But the poor are not the same from one time period to another. Large proportions of people in our society cycle into and out of poverty throughout their lifetime and most do not stay either unemployed or poor for many years in a row.

There are times, like the present, when large numbers of people who were employed suddenly become unemployed for long periods of time. Does this mean laziness or that being a terrible employee are contagious? Certainly not.

Something larger than the individual is happening.

Our economic system does not create enough jobs for all who are able and willing to work, much like the game of musical chairs.

When playing this game with ten people but only eight chairs, every time the music stops two people will not have chairs. If we play this enough times each of the ten players is without a chair at least once.

Therefore it cannot be the characteristics of the individual players that determine their chairlessness. It is the structure of the game; more players than chairs.

It is the same with the economy; we have more workers than jobs. We have tried for several decades to change the characteristics of the poor based on our belief that individuals are the cause of their poverty. This belief makes programs/strategies to make the poor better people and better able to handle their affairs appealing instruments to minimize or eliminate poverty.

Our strong individualism and our social location prevent us from seeing the problem of poverty from a broader perspective.

We need to stop blaming the victim.

Jim Jones

Starkville
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,865
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2011, 12:47:07 pm »
Get this, apparently it's okay not to be sympathetic to the poor because they buy too much alcohol and cigarettes (thus racking up their own tax bill)  ::) Hell, I see ordinary people supporting outright eugenics aimed at the poor or bribes for sterilisation.

Other stereotypes include: sitting on the sofa watching Jeremy Kyle all day, "breeding furiously" and claiming more welfare for the kids, oh and getting too much housing support. Nicely ironic that last one is given who actually sets the rents...

Makes it seem futile to bother talking to people who hold these kind of psychopathic beliefs.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Let Them Eat Cake: 10 Examples Of How The Elite Are Savagely Mocking The Poor
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2011, 10:47:14 am »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/let-them-eat-cake-10-examples-of-how-the-elite-are-savagely-mocking-the-poor.html

Let Them Eat Cake: 10 Examples Of How The Elite Are Savagely Mocking The Poor

The Economic Collapse
October 31, 2011

There is absolutely nothing wrong with working hard and making a lot of money, but there is something wrong with being completely arrogant and smug about it.  Today, many among the elite are savagely mocking the poor, and that is a huge mistake.  You shouldn’t kick people when they are down.  There are tens of millions of Americans that are deeply frustrated about losing their homes, losing their jobs or barely being able to survive in this economy.  These frustrations have been one of the primary reasons for the rise of the Tea Party movement and the rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement.  What these movements have in common is that people in both movements are sick and tired of the status quo and they want something to be done about our broken system.  There are huge numbers of families out there right now that have just about reached the end of their ropes.  Instead of showing compassion, many of the ultra-wealthy have decided that it is funny to mock the poor and those that are suffering.  So how are all of these protesters going to respond to the “let them eat cake” attitude of the Wall Street elite?  The protesters are being told that nothing that they can do will change anything and that they should be grateful for what Wall Street and the ultra-wealthy have done for them.  They are essentially being told that they should just shut up and go home.  So will we see these protest movements become discouraged and die down, or will the patronizing attitudes of so many among the elite just inflame them even further?

Right now, there really are two different “Americas”.  In one America, the stock market is surging, corporate profits are soaring and BMW is operating factories at 110% of capacity just to keep up with demand.

In the other America, unemployment is rampant, millions of families are being kicked out of their homes and more than 45 million Americans are on food stamps.

There is more economic frustration in this country today than there has been at any other time since the Great Depression.  We are watching pressure build to very dangerous levels.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2012, 09:29:41 am »
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350990-503544/santorum-targets-blacks-in-entitlement-reform/

Santorum targets blacks in entitlement reform

By Lucy Madison
CBS News
January 2, 2012

At a campaign stop in Sioux City, Iowa on Sunday, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum singled out blacks as being recipients of assistance through federal benefit programs, telling a mostly-white audience he doesn't want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money."

Answering a question about foreign influence on the U.S. economy, the former Pennsylvania senator went on to discuss the American entitlement system - which he argued is being used to politically exploit its beneficiaries.

"It just keeps expanding - I was in Indianola a few months ago and I was talking to someone who works in the department of public welfare here, and she told me that the state of Iowa is going to get fined if they don't sign up more people under the Medicaid program," Santorum said. "They're just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so they can get your vote. That's what the bottom line is."

He added: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

"Right," responded one audience member, as another woman can be seen nodding.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Does not the following article explain (among other things) the warped psychology of blame-the-victim firsters?

----------------------------

http://www.prisonplanet.com/now-that-is-cold-19-signs-that-america-is-becoming-a-very-heartless-place.html

Now THAT Is Cold – 19 Signs That America Is Becoming A Very Heartless Place

The Economic Collapse
March 5, 2012

The economy is not the only thing that is wrong with America.  In order for a society to function smoothly, people need to be able to trust one another and be able to expect that most of their fellow citizens will behave in a somewhat civilized manner.  Unfortunately, we are starting to see the very fabric of our society slowly unravel all over the nation.  The truth is that America is becoming a very heartless place.  People simply do not care about one another the way that they used to in this country.  Of course there are many exceptions, but the reality is that millions of hearts are going cold from coast to coast.  In America today, we are more self-absorbed than ever, more self-centered than ever, and we are more isolated from others than ever.  Just think about the number of people that you personally interact with on a regular basis.  Unless you are involved with a very large organization such as a school or a church, it is probably a very limited number.  Our addiction to entertainment gives us the illusion of being connected to society, but the truth is that Americans spend less time personally interacting with one another than ever before.  Meanwhile, Americans are seemingly becoming more arrogant, more prideful, more angry, more brutal, more greedy and more addicted to pleasure than ever before.  When you combine millions of very cold hearts with an economy that is rapidly crumbling, that adds up to a whole lot of trouble in the years ahead.

Even government authorities are becoming heartless.  TSA agents and police officers are actually trained to “act tough” and to bark orders at us.  In the old days, you could reason with a police officer, but these days if you try to talk common sense with some of these thugs you will get tasered before you even realize what is happening.

The American people can see the deep corruption in Washington D.C. and throughout most of our other major institutions and they wonder why they should keep trying to do “the right thing”.

If our leaders are selfish and heartless, then it is only natural that millions of average Americans will follow their examples.

In America today, we are taught to hate one another.  Democrats are taught to hate Republicans and Republicans are taught to hate Democrats.  We are a deeply divided nation and our hearts are getting colder with each passing year.

Parents are becoming more cruel, thieves are becoming more bold and thugs are becoming more brutal.  Hate, anger and frustration are fueling some really twisted behavior all over the country.  America is changing, and not for the better.

The following are 19 signs that America is becoming a very heartless place….

[Continued...]

----------------------------
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Blaming the Poor for Their Own Poverty
« Reply #32 on: March 19, 2012, 11:51:59 am »
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/10/blaming-the-poor-for-their-own-poverty/

Blaming the Poor for Their Own Poverty

Nicholas Kristof, Charles Murray and the "Culture of Poverty"

by CAMERON RIOPELLE
CounterPunch
Weekend Edition February 10-12, 2012

Nicholas Kristof and Daniel Patrick Moynihan have much in common. Namely, they have constructed variations on the “culture of poverty” argument. In “The White Underclass,” his recent op-ed piece for the New York Times, Kristof brings our nation’s favorite blame game back: “In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan released a famous report warning of a crisis in African-American family structures, and many liberals at the time accused him of something close to racism. In retrospect, Moynihan was right to sound the alarms.” Kristof does not call Moynihan a racist—no, he is merely something close to racist. This is far from comforting.

Kristof, like Moynihan, blames poor black families for their own struggles. Unlike Moynihan, he graciously extends this blame beyond black families and to white families as well—an update for these colorblind times. With Kristof’s muscle, the “culture of poverty” argument is taking on the contemporary poor generally, purportedly without race in mind. He has a grudge against the poor because he thinks they do not get married enough, that they do not engage enough in nuclear family structures, that they use too many drugs, and they have the gall to think that capitalism might work for them, when it is obvious to everyone else that it does not: “But the glove factory closed, working-class jobs collapsed and unskilled laborers found themselves competing with immigrants.” With the poor forced to compete with the invoked specter of immigrants, Kristof concludes that the “pathologies” discussed by Moynihan are real and relevant, and that we must build our social policies with this blame in mind.

Kristof’s piece is inspired by a new book by Charles Murray, Coming Apart, which blames liberal social policy for these problems. On the surface, Kristof opposes many points in the book, but if Kristof’s musings on the poor are any sign of how liberal policymakers think about such matters, then Murray has already won his point. The language is so drearily predictable. The working-class are men. There is a fixation on drug use as if it is solely a problem of the working-class and the poor. There is a framing of blacks and whites against immigrants. That this narrative about race and poverty reappears so easily and is so accessible tells us what we should already know: this argument is antagonistic to the poor and it is popular enough that liberals and conservatives can readily agree about it and move on to the debate over whether liberal or conservative social policy can fix the problem.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline America2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,308
  • Romans 10:9-10 King James Version
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #33 on: March 19, 2012, 09:06:01 pm »
There's this BIG heresy floating around in mainline Churchianity circles called "Social Justice", where this false gospel over how Christians need to push for "redistribution of the wealth" to make this world a better place is part of the end times deception/delusion. Alot of these Emergent Church leaders you see on the MSM are Jim Wallis, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, just to name a few that are pushing this very false gospel.(ie-at Warren's Saddleback Church, social justice is on the youth's curriculum)

What a bunch of hypocrites! Wallis makes a 6 figure(at least) income and affords the finest of foods and clothes, why can't he himself fork over some of his income to the poor?

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #34 on: March 19, 2012, 09:12:52 pm »
There's this BIG heresy floating around in mainline Churchianity circles called "Social Justice", where this false gospel over how Christians need to push for "redistribution of the wealth" to make this world a better place is part of the end times deception/delusion. Alot of these Emergent Church leaders you see on the MSM are Jim Wallis, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, just to name a few that are pushing this very false gospel.(ie-at Warren's Saddleback Church, social justice is on the youth's curriculum)

This thread isn't even about religion, but since you brought it up, and since you've repeatedly invoked the term "false gospel," is the following what you would regard as the "true" gospel?

     http://www.theocracywatch.org/rr_economics.htm

Why or why not?
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: Blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich
« Reply #35 on: May 23, 2012, 03:09:03 pm »
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
World's richest woman says poor should have less fun, work harder
« Reply #36 on: August 31, 2012, 01:15:36 pm »
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-richest-woman-20120830,0,3323996.story

World's richest woman says poor should have less fun, work harder

By David Lazarus
Los Angeles Times
August 30, 2012

Just in case you were beginning to think rich people were deeply misunderstood and that they feel the pain of those who are less fortunate, here's the world's wealthiest woman, Australian mining tycoon Gina Rinehart, with some helpful advice.

"If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain," she said in a magazine piece. "Do something to make more money yourself -- spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working."

Yeah, let them eat cake.

Rinehart made her money the old-fashioned way: She inherited it. Her family iron ore prospecting fortune of $30.1 billion makes her Australia's wealthiest person and the richest woman on the planet.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,243
Re: World's richest woman says poor should have less fun, work harder
« Reply #37 on: August 31, 2012, 01:36:29 pm »
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-richest-woman-20120830,0,3323996.story

World's richest woman says poor should have less fun, work harder

By David Lazarus
Los Angeles Times
August 30, 2012

Just in case you were beginning to think rich people were deeply misunderstood and that they feel the pain of those who are less fortunate, here's the world's wealthiest woman, Australian mining tycoon Gina Rinehart, with some helpful advice.

"If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain," she said in a magazine piece. "Do something to make more money yourself -- spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working."

Yeah, let them eat cake.

Rinehart made her money the old-fashioned way: She inherited it. Her family iron ore prospecting fortune of $30.1 billion makes her Australia's wealthiest person and the richest woman on the planet.

[Continued...]

People who inherit wealth should shut the F**** up about economics.

You want to piss off a conservative...  show them these films...

The American Dream Film-Full Length
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM


The Money Masters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+money+changers&ei=Zd4QSMjvB47YqAKQtJmzBA


The problem with conservatives is that they get all ROBOCOP DIRECTIVE 4 when it comes to banks, cops, the military or corporations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr3t1uZNbKo

but don't have this impediment when it comes to teens, minorities, the poor, or women.


Offline Donovan

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
Re: World's richest woman says poor should have less fun, work harder
« Reply #38 on: August 31, 2012, 03:15:57 pm »


She in a sense is slightly correct in her statement, but she missed one important part.

You can work as hard as you want, but if you are working for someone else, you'll never be rich ... you'll only make someone else rich (and richer).

People who are rich made it because they worked for themselves, not someone else.

So yes, get up off your ass, and start working for yourself. Figure out a way how to make money yourself, and you're on your way to becoming rich. As long as you're an employee and not an employer, wealth is out of the question for the large majority.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,048
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org
Re: World's richest woman says poor should have less fun, work harder
« Reply #39 on: August 31, 2012, 06:40:08 pm »
She in a sense is slightly correct in her statement

No, she is flat wrong, and clearly detached from reality.

Quote
You can work as hard as you want, but if you are working for someone else, you'll never be rich

There aren't any rich Hollywood actors? There aren't any rich football or basketball players?

Quote
People who are rich made it because they worked for themselves, not someone else.

In some cases, yes. But in many others it's merely because they parasitically extracted wealth -- via the use of one or more economic privileges (see this, this and this) -- from others.

This right-wing fantasy that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers of the world actually "worked" for all the money they have is just that -- a fantasy. You might as well profess a belief in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny while you're at it (and be laughed at accordingly).

Quote
So yes, get up off your ass,

No, get off your self-righteous high horse, and accept the fact that the average sweatshop slave -- or the average Wal-Mart greeter, for that matter -- does more honest "work" in one day than the average ruling-class parasite does in an entire lifetime.

Quote
and start working for yourself.

Unfortunately, deadbeats like the following are just too lazy to do that:

    

Perhaps one day they won't be. One can only hope. But at least in the meantime they have blame-the-victim-firsters like Gina Rinehart and Austrian School reactionaries like Peter Schiff to look up to and draw inspiration from.

::)

"And, as has always happened where slavery had not race character, some of these ex-slaves or their children would, in the constant movement, be always working their way to the highest places, so that in such a state of society the apologists of things as they are would triumphantly point to these examples, saying, 'See how beautiful a thing is slavery! Any slave can become a slaveholder himself if he is only faithful, industrious and prudent! It is only their own ignorance and dissipation and laziness that prevent all slaves from becoming masters!' And then they would indulge in a moan for human nature. 'Alas!' they would say, 'the fault is not in slavery; it is in human nature' -- meaning, of course, other human nature than their own. And if any one hinted at the abolition of slavery, they would charge him with assailing the sacred rights of property, and of endeavoring to rob poor blind widow women of the slaves that were their sole dependence; call him a crank and a communist; an enemy of man and a defier of God!"

-- Henry George, Social Problems, p. 155
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0