Monday, December 12, 2011

Equality

Here is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell being interviewed by Chris Wallace, explaining how the Republicans are not just out to defend rich people. In fact, McConnell said, "we make sure millionaires don’t get unemployment, don’t get food stamps. . . . It doesn’t do anything for millionaires, in fact, it goes after them on the benefits side."




How reassuring that the Republicans do not want to be seen solely as the defenders of the rich. To prove it, they want to cut back on eligibility for food stamps and unemployment benefits for both the rich and the poor. All those rich people who were planning to apply for food stamps can think twice about their plans now. They will get no sympathy from the Republican Party!

Or as Anatole France said over a hundred years ago: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."  It's good to know that the Republican Party still stands for that kind of equality.

(Thanks to Think Progress, for catching the McConnell clip.)

13 comments:

  1. How very Marie Antoinette!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hope creates jobs. Demand for goods and services creates jobs. That means putting more money in the pockets of consumers creates jobs. But also, government spending creates jobs, whether for defense contractors or road construction crews or teachers or firemen. Those are all . . . jobs.

    You want me to say that putting more money in the pockets of rich people also creates jobs, and to some extent that is true, but not as efficiently as putting more money in the hands of poor people. And the reason for that is that poor people spend a larger proportion of their money, while rich people tend to save more. And hoarding capital, the way corporations and the wealthy are currently doing, is not a very good way to create jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. YourStreet.org was originally launched in October 2010.

    Now YourStreet.org will be re-launched in order to capture the spirit, aspirations and power of the 99 percent, and to coalesce that force into a positive social, political and economic renascent that encompasses the 1 percent and serves the needs of the 100 percent.

    YourStreet.org is the platform for millions of income tax filers, which includes more than 25 million unemployed and underemployed Americans; the 15 million homeowners with underwater mortgages; the 38 million students and recent graduates struggling with student loan debt; millions of seniors who are on fixed income; and others to leverage their collective, political and spending power to get this economy moving again.

    In a 2010 Associated Press survey of leading economists it was revealed that 70 percent of the U.S. economy is made up of consumer spending, which is critically important to any economic recovery.

    Based on the findings, YourStreet.org concluded that consumer spending is the main pillar of support for the economy. Further, if consumer spending becomes weak, as it is now, the economy falters.

    Therefore, to encourage an economic recovery, YourStreet.org developed a proposal to incentivize consumer spending through the creation of a new public-private partnership between government, businesses and consumers.

    Through the taxpayers’ elected representatives, the U.S. financial system was rescued from default and impending failure in 2008 and 2009. Now it’s time that Congress provided taxpayers a fair and equal opportunity to directly participate in the economic recovery of the United States with targeted government support.

    YourStreet.org proposes that emergency executive and legislative action be taken to create a quasi-public corporation—(a Government-Sponsored Enterprise—GSE), called the “Consumer Investment Incentive Agency (CIIA),” with the mandate of developing tools to foster and accelerate an economic recovery; with an emphasis on restoring stability in the residential housing market and incentivizing consumer spending.

    In addition, the CIIA will be tasked with, among other things, the responsibility and authority to create and issue time-sensitive incentivized YourStreet Money Debit Cards (YSMDCs) that would put money directly into consumer’s hands and double their purchasing power on consumer goods, housing and education, or YSMDCs could be used to start a micro-business.

    A provision in the proposed legislation allows tax return filers and others to receive up to $2,500 (tax-free) from the CIIA—which is backed by the Treasury—to match their $2,500 personal funds. For example, to receive a $5,000 “consumer” YSMDC a consumer deposits $2,500 into his or her YSMDC account at any participating financial institution of their choosing. The CIIA will then match the funds and make an electronic deposit (per instructions of the financial institution) into the consumer’s account, which is then ready for activation by the cardholder.

    Matching funds are between $500, $1,000, $1,500, $2,000 or $2,500—again whatever the consumer chooses. YSMDCs are available in denominations of $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 and $5,000. All funds on the YSMDC must be used within the United States or U.S. territories, within a designated period of time.

    There is also a provision for small-business owners to receive a 6 percent low interest business-building loan on the card in an amount up to $12,500 in matching funds. This “business” card functions in the same manner as consumer cards. To qualify for a business YSMDC, a small-business owner must employ one or more individuals for at least two years and pay payroll taxes through his or her IRS employer ID number.

    The proposed CIIA partnership legislation proffered is a bold new $2 trillion consumer-driven plan of sufficient magnitude, focusing on the housing sector and consumer spending.

    ©2011 Carl Gordon
    cg@yourstreet.org

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hope doesn't create anything... people with money to invest hoping to make a profit creates jobs. You kill the golden goose and you end up with a welfare state and little incentive for anybody else to do anything about it.

    People with money will simply move it somewhere else or sit on it keeping it out of the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Harrison, right now people with money to invest are having trouble finding enterprises to invest in that are likely to create a good return for them. Why is that? Because we are still in a slump that was caused by a fall in property values and a slowdown in demand for goods and services. When people (or the government) start buying more goods and services, there will be plenty of investment that will create jobs.

    It is backwards to give more money to people who are already sitting on tons of cash because they can't find worthwhile investments. We need to create the demand first and the jobs will follow.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joe, you're not GIVING them money... you're letting them keep what they EARNED.

    This guy says he won't hire until Obama's gone... he's not the only one:

    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/257323/20111128/georgia-businessman-company-won-t-hire-obama.htm

    ReplyDelete
  7. Some of them earned it. Some of them inherited it. Some of them acquired it in other ways. But the real question, even for those who earned it, is how come they earn so much more than they used to, compared to everyone else? The ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay in the 1960's was about 20 to 1. Now it is more than 200 to 1. And back in the 60's we didn't used to let them keep nearly as much of what they earned, even when they earned so much less, comparatively. Why do people feel so much more protective of the earnings of high income individuals than we used to, even when those earnings have gone off the charts?

    ReplyDelete
  8. You just can't get an ideologue to argue common sense. They are too busy pointing fingers at everybody else to consolidate power.

    It's the same in sport relative when it comes to altering physilogy. In medicine there is a preference for doing things your way (neurology vs physical medicine). Same when it comes to parenting or love.

    Politics is just another fertile playground. There is a reason they put blinders on some race horses at the track. They work!

    Problem is, when it comes to solving the really big issues what we see today are the far left and far right playing checkers in a chess world.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here we go, an example of the insanity:

    http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/llegals/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stock options Joe. Not too common back in the day. And you think that the "rich" stay that way. They don't. There is movement from rich to poorer and poorer to richer.

    Also, money begets money... compounding interest.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Harrison, is that really the position you want to be in, trying to justify the massive wealth disparities we have today?

    Kevin, thanks for the link to that NY Times piece. It's a bit off topic, but I have to say that I don't agree at all that this is an example of insanity. In fact, I would go further. I think we should try to avoid labels of all kinds, and we should try to avoid using the verb "to be" except when we are genuinely trying to express the concept of equivalence. For example, I think it is much more accurate to say that I practice law, or even that law is my profession, than to say I am a lawyer. Because to say that that is all that I am as a human being, is just not accurate, and even somewhat demeaning and limiting. I have other roles also.

    To use a term like "illegal" to describe all that another human being is, is even more demeaning and inaccurate. It's a much better usage, and much more accurate also, to say that someone has overstayed their visa, or entered the country illegally, or committed some other illegal act, than to label them an "illegal." If we try to avoid that kind of usage, we will improve the quality of our debate about this issue, and we will avoid demonizing the people we are talking about, whether we are talking about changing their immigration status, or whether we are talking about a suitable punishment for their actions.

    ReplyDelete