How George W. Bush screwed this generation of college students...
By Thom Hartmann A...
Every kid in America could have a free public college education right now if George W. Bush hadn’t been such a war monger. In early 2001, prior to the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban government in Afghanistan issued an edict to ban opium cultivation in that nation, saying it was a violation of Islam. (Opium is the raw material for heroin.) And it worked pretty well.
In 2000, roughly 4,500 metric tons of opium was produced in Afghanistan. In 2001, that number plummeted to less than 1,000 metric tons. The price of heroin went up around the world, and the number of addicts – particularly in Europe, Russia, and America – dropped. The Bush administration was so impressed by the decrease in opium production that it gave $43 million to the Taliban, to encourage a continued halt on opium production.
While $43 million may not seem like a lot, it’s important to put it in context. At the time of the deal, Afghanistan’s total GDP was just $2 billion, putting it at the bottom of the global GDP rankings. It was, literally, the poorest country in the world. So, for the Taliban, $43 million was a lot of money. George W. Bush’s decision to fork over $43 million to the Taliban to help curb drug trafficking, use, and abuse was actually a good choice, and a smart policy.
Now fast forward to the days and weeks after 9/11. On October 14th, 2001, a senior Taliban leader, Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir, sent an official offer to Washington, saying that the Taliban would be willing to hand over Osama Bin Laden to a third-party country, if the U.S. stopped the bombing of Afghanistan. Kabir said that, “If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate. Then we could discuss which third country.”
But Bush, the same man who, just months earlier, had handed over a small fortune to the Taliban government, rejected this latest offer of cooperation. Instead, he took up a “scorched earth” policy and bombed Afghanistan back into the stone ages. Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan has cost our country over $713 billion since 2001. And that number is rising by the millisecond. In fact, every hour, the war in Afghanistan is costing We the People another $10.17 million.
The Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden on a silver platter, but we said no, and now it’s cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. But what if George W. Bush had taken up the offer from the Taliban, and even sweetened the deal like he did with the opium?
What if he did something similar to what he had done just months before, and offered to give the Taliban money, if they promised to cut down on terrorism and on al Qaeda’s presence and influence in that nation? We could have given the Taliban $2 billion, enough to double the nation’s GDP and make everybody in the country twice as wealthy, and it still would have only been a drop in the bucket compared to what we’ve spent on the war in Afghanistan.
And, if we had done that, we would have saved ourselves enough money to provide a free public college education to every single eligible student in America. As The Atlantic points out, according to Department of Education data, public colleges across America collected $62.6 billion in tuition from undergrads in 2012.
That means that the federal government would only have had to spend $62.6 billion to help make public college tuition free for every student in America in 2012. That’s less than 11% of what we have spent on the war in Afghanistan. The bottom-line here is that George W. Bush had a chance to get America’s priorities right, and he failed. Fortunately, he’s not in Washington anymore.
So now, instead of spending trillions of dollars on prolonging the Bush legacy of unjust wars, we should be spending those trillions on the things that will make America great again, like giving every eligible student in America a free public college education.
Comments
#2
Most likely, ChicagoMatt, your higher-ups are reading everything you type at work, even if it is a break or lunch time. Some even spy on you at home. Employers do this, you know, and you will probably never know it until they decide to crack down on you one way or the other. The Brave New World of employers spying on what we do at work (or, at home), even if it is ostensibly "on your own time", is here!
It's been a few years, and I've done WAY worse things online at work and on my school-issued laptop at home. If they are waiting to "get me", they sure have enough to go on by now. Of course, I work for a nonprofit and the "central office" is a bunch of elderly nuns. I don't think I am important enough to be monitored.
It is in my contract though that I cannot speak on behalf of the school. So I don't.
#3
As far as I am concerned anyone with a job deserves the same respect of anyone who give their time to contribute to society. We all do our best. I see no difference between physical and nonphysical jobs
There sure does seem to be a lot of demonizing CEOs, hedgefund managers, bankers, etc... on this site, and on Thom's show. They are people with jobs. They deserve respect.
I am about to objectify people, so brace yourself. But it helps to prove my point. Just like workers, things that can be easily replaced around your house are worth less for that reason. The more common something is, the less it is worth. We all agree on that. If your job is to do something that 99% of other adults could do, then you have common skills and do not deserve the paycheck of something who has rarer skills. Not everyone can balance a finance book, so they get paid more.
Or, to put it in more vulgar terms, for shock value (always a good way to get a point across): The best-looking prostitutes can charge a hell of a lot more than an ordinary-looking prostitute, because they have something that is rare. That's why there are $1,000 an hour "escorts", and $10 street-walkers.
Sure, some people are born into wealth, and it doesn't seem fair. Just like some people are born with more visually appealing genes. It's not fair in that case either, but that's the world in which we live.
ChicagoMatt wrote:But, you are right about something. That "least amount" that the lawnmower pusher makes should keep him off of the welfare rolls.
Hallelujah! On that we can all agree.
My inner right-wing asshole is telling me that, if the problem is too many low-wage workers on welfare, then the solution is to reduce the threshold for welfare. As I slowly confront my own mortality, that voice gets quieter.
#4
Quote ChicagoMatt:My inner right-wing asshole is telling me that, if the problem is too many low-wage workers on welfare, then the solution is to reduce the threshold for welfare. As I slowly confront my own mortality, that voice gets quieter.
ChicagoMatt ~ Some solution! What your inner right-wing asshole fails to see is that if this solution were ever enacted it would quickly result in every minimum wage worker walking out on the job and applying for welfare. There is a limit to how far people can be logically pushed and it would appear that the real right-wing assholes have already determined that their little wage slaves need to eat to work. They just don't think it is their responsibility to feed them. Therefore, they are far more content at extorting tax money from you and I in order to keep their little cogs alive. The only rational solution is to raise the wages so these people are self sufficient. Even Pharaoh knew enough to feed his slaves. The pyramids are testimony to that.
By the way, where in your Bible does it state that is is fair and good to work people to death for profit? If someone puts in 40 hrs a week doing anything they should be able to afford a roof, cloths, food, medical care, and a retirement without resorting to public aid. How does your god--or you--justify anything less?
#5
Apropos to # 205 ~ Another mistake in judgement most right wingers make is that everyone is capable of being trained and having an education. Some people just aren't born that way. Some people can't be trained. Some people have learning disabilities and simply aren't that bright. What many of them share is the willingness to work hard and do their best. That is a very worthy characteristic that I personally respect a great deal. The least we owe these people is a living. That begins with a living wage.
In college I tutored people with learning disabilities. They fall short on the skilled labor side as no fault of their own. Just the other day I was in line at the supermarket. The new checkout girl stopped to count three stacks of cat food I placed next to each other. There were three stacks and 6 cans in each. She counted them one at a time much to my amazement. To my further amazement near the end she lost count and had to start over again. With $1B of financial aid and 30 years of education that young lady would never qualify for any other job. She barely qualified to be a checkout person.
Common sense is not as common as the name implies--not everyone has it. Without common sense an education and training isn't going to help you. Nevertheless, everyone has human dignity. Everyone is entitled to a fair living wage for a fair amount of labor. Anything else is playing right into the oligarchical plan to maximize profit at the top at the expense of a disposable labor force at the bottom. There is nothing more obscene and immoral than one person taking advantage of another; and, this system is just that on steroids.
I certainly hope that these are not the values you teach during your 45 minutes of religious teachings. If so, God help us all.
#6
where in your Bible does it state that is is fair and good to work people to death for profit
It doesn't. I don't see the elites of the world as cracking whips over the backs of the lowest-paid workers either. Like I said before, my Bible tells me not to judge people. So I'm not judging those who have more than me, nor those who have less.
Then again, the Bible also says that whatever I do for "the least among us", I do for Jesus. That's why I volunteer and donate to the handicapped. It goes well with both the "not judging" and "helping" parts of the Bible.
Since we're talking religion, I often wonder what other members of Abrahamic faiths envision God as - like a boss who is keeping score of your good and bad deeds, or more like a father to a child, correcting you for your own good. I prefer the father/child scenario, where, like my father was to me and I am to my son, I correct him if he gets way out of line, and use it as a teachable moment. And no matter what he does, I won't love him any less. I may be disappointed, but never unloving. Que the peaceful violin music...
There is a limit to how far people can be logically pushed and it would appear that the real right-wing assholes have already determined that their little wage slaves need to eat to work.
Again, do you think there is some memo that goes out to people who have employees that tells them all how they are going to screw over their workers that day? Some secret handshake and password the "elites" have? Do you think the CEO of McDonalds really hates the low-wage employees? Or, more likely, he or she doesn't give a damn about them. They aren't out to get you, they just don't care one way or the other. Not very Christian of them, if they claim that as their faith. But it's not my place to judge.
For what it's worth, I voted with my wallet today and skipped McDonalds for lunch. Mostly because I skipped lunch altogether. But that was my choice.
#7
I agree that some people just can't be educated. I used to be an aide for autistic students and those with cerebral palsy. These were people who would never live on their own, much less hold a job.
I think the problem lies in the dismantling of the manufacturing sector. I support higher tariffs on imports to compel companies to bring back those middle-income jobs. That is way different than trying to turn a teenager's summer job, like flipping burgers, into a middle-income job.
Here in Chicago, we used to have two big chain grocery stores: Dominicks and Jewel (owned by Albertsons). Both hired workers with disabilities. Dominick's hired more, from what I could tell. Both were unionized.
Dominck's went bankrupt about two years ago. A new chain moved in - Marianos - which is not unionized and does not hire disabled workers, from what I can tell. If it does hire them, they only work at night. Anyway, I often wonder what happened to all of those disabled people who got laid off from Dominicks.
Everyone is entitled to a fair living wage for a fair amount of labor. Anything else is playing right into the oligarchical plan to maximize profit at the top at the expense of a disposable labor force at the bottom.
I agree in principle, but who determines the "fair" amounts? The government? The same government that thinks it's "fair" that my daughter be held to a higher standard to get into the best high schools because we live in a wealthy neighborhood? That doesn't seem "fair" to me.
#8
Matt, if you don't see the "elites of the world" cracking whips over the backs of low-paid workers, you're not paying attention. Or like other conservatives, maybe you just don't give a rat's ass.
I always hated that phrase, "the least among us". It is so bloody condescending. Why must we always define each other according to what we have, rather than who we are?! Even progressives use that kind of language. What a myopic, belittling way of characterizing those who have the least!
There is such crazy bullshit woven through this culture, at every level, I often feel like I don't belong here. On a daily basis i experience culture shock, in the culture I was born into. It's exhausting. I think that when my time is up, it will come with some sense of relief. - Aliceinwonderland
#9
Quote ChicagoMatt:I think the problem lies in the dismantling of the manufacturing sector. I support higher tariffs on imports to compel companies to bring back those middle-income jobs.
ChicagoMatt ~ Now we are in complete agreement. I certainly second and third that motion.
Quote ChicagoMatt:That is way different than trying to turn a teenager's summer job, like flipping burgers, into a middle-income job.
ChicagoMatt ~ That sounds very hard to believe from a former McDonald's employee like myself. Was there really any job you ever had that was more difficult that that summer job? The only job I can think of was clearing out poison oak from a vacant lot. Exploitation is ugly no matter when and where it occurs. Please don't try to defend it. It doesn't become an educator.
Quote ChicagoMatt:I agree in principle, but who determines the "fair" amounts? The government?
ChicagoMatt ~ If not the government, who else? Santa Claus? Certainly businesses have proven themselves to be incapable. At that point it is the government's responsibility.
#10
Government was supposed to serve the people, and one of its most important roles was protecting the weak from the strong via regulations and so forth... that is, prior to this hostile corporate-fascist takeover! But Marc is right; it's the government's job and responsibility to set boundaries around the employer-employee relationship; boundaries designed to protect workers from exploitation and abuse. Since Reagan took office, and arguably prior to Reagan, the government has been neglecting that part of its job. So we still have waitresses busting their fannies for two bucks an hour, and franchises committing wage theft, and Walmart employees forced by necessity to apply for welfare. Nowadays it seems that when it comes to work, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If working doesn't get someone out of poverty anymore, why work at all? What's the point? - AIW
#11
If not the government, who else?
Answering questions with questions - always a good debate move. I teach it to my students, along with "taking away your opponant's main point before they get to say it", and "making your opponant agree on something basic, then attaching your argument to that agreement." Sometimes, when I am listening to Thom, I cringe when they get right-wing callers that get painted into a rhetorical corner that way. Conservative talkers do it to their left-wing callers too.
That's why this forum is so great - gives people time to think and formulate well crafted retorts.
Anyway, back to the point. If the government is the ONLY option, what level of government should determine the "fair" amount. If big cities want to have higher minimum wages, which some of them do, why should that level be imposed on small towns? If the good people of New York want a $15 per hour minimum, and the equally good people of Birmingham, AL, want $7.25, who decides which one is more "fair"?
#12
What "good people" are you referring to, Matt; the employer class, or the employee? Because I guarantee, they'd give very different answers. - AIW
#13
What "good people" are you referring to, Matt; the employer class, or the employee? Because I guarantee, they'd give very different answers.
Progressives are so sold on this "employers are out to get the employees" idea that they see themselves as some sort of white knights, out there saving the "wage slaves" from their masters. Nevermind if those "wage slaves" may be perfectly happy the way they are.
It's a lot like evangelical Christians in that regard - standing in front of an abortion clinic, "saving" a woman from making a "unforgivable sin". They sincerely believe that the Devil is out there, making people do bad things, and it is up to them to save people from themselves. Progressives are the same way - their "Devil" is anyone who has an income they consider "too much".
Maybe, because I am in a good mood when I go into a store, I project my emotions onto the clerks. Maybe they seem to be happy and content because I am. Then again, maybe Progressives are doing the same thing. They are unhappy with their lives, and they project it onto the people they see. "I'm not happy with $8 an hour, so NO ONE can EVER be happy with $8 an hour." Or, "My personal financial situation isn't the way I wanted it to be, so it MUST be some grand conspiracy by the elites to keep me down. It can't possibly be bad luck or bad choices on my part."
Or, "If only a few thousand people show up to this protest, in a city of millions, then it must be because of some conspiracy/media blackout/brainwashed masses/people voting against their own self-interests, and not a simple lack of interest in my cause."
#14
Matt, you are wasting my time. This discussion is going nowhere. I'll not spin my wheels arguing with someone clueless enough to insist that workers are (or should be) content getting paid $8.00 an hour with no benefits. Why don't you try living on that if you think it's so great. After a few months, report back to me. Until then, I'm done with this debate. I've had my fill of your condescending attitude, mindless generalities and stupid remarks. - AIW
#15
Chi Matt --- The media is controlled by the1%
Quote Chi Matt:Or, "If only a few thousand people show up to this protest, in a city of millions, then it must be because of some conspiracy/media blackout/brainwashed masses/people voting against their own self-interests, and not a simple lack of interest in my cause."
What about if 80,000 plus people show up for a rally like that in North Carolina for Moral Mondays and no media shows up? What if 200 tea partiers show up and all the media is there? What does that mean?
#16
chi matt -- We are trying to change that world.
Quote Chi Matt:It's not fair in that case either, but that's the world in which we live in
That is the world you were born into. We are trying to change the world (actually just the US) to the one we were born into. A world with average tariffs of 30%, at least a little enforcement of the anti-trust laws, a top tax rate of 91% with the rich paying less in taxes etc.
#17
Chi Matt you are the one responsible for the length of this blog, I, for one, want to thank you.
#18
Chuck, I'm glad it's been fun for you. Not so much for me, however. I get very tired of debating in circles with someone who keeps repeating the same old talking points over and over again, that I've responded to already several times. Gets kinda boring after awhile... - AIW
#19
What about if 80,000 plus people show up for a rally like that in North Carolina for Moral Mondays and no media shows up? What if 200 tea partiers show up and all the media is there? What does that mean?
I did see a story about the Moral Mondays thing. I think it was on either Dateline or 20/20. I did not see any wide shots of the crowd. But I don't doubt it was that big. When the media shows up for a Tea Party rally, when it's the national media at least, it seems to me that they show up to mock it, just like they do Sarah Palin.
#20
Alice, I hope I'm not offending you. I don't mean anything to be taken personally. I thought I was making some good points. But yes, we do seem to be going in circles. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, because we all know that's not going to happen.
#21
That is the world you were born into. We are trying to change the world (actually just the US) to the one we were born into.Fair enough. But do you see how, if this world I was born into has been fairly good to me, I might not want it to change? Even if there is some evil elitist conspiracy to control everything and everyone - apparently I've been selected to be one of the ones that they placate with a decent life.
#22
Quote ChicagoMatt:Even if there is some evil elitist conspiracy to control everything and everyone - apparently I've been selected to be one of the ones that they placate with a decent life.
ChicagoMatt ~ You and me both. The only difference is that I find it hard to enjoy that so called decent life when aware of so many other fine people around me who are being screwed into a lifetime of hardship. Unlike you, I live the teaching that "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me." For me to be able to enjoy my privilege, justice and fairness must first reign for all.
#23
The only difference is that I find it hard to enjoy that so called decent life when aware of so many other fine people around me who are being screwed into a lifetime of hardship.
Maybe that's the problem - I don't see anyone around me being screwed into a life of hardship. At least, not by some big elitist conspiracy.
Unlike you, I live the teaching that "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me." For me to be able to enjoy my privilege, justice and fairness must first reign for all.
I live that teaching as well. I think the difference is where we put our faith. I see a problem, I donate to the church to help with that problem, and I see the immediate results. I have little faith in the government to help. I put this in my bio too - I see the government sort of like Lennie from Of Mice and Men. Well-intentioned and good for some of the heavy lifting, but ultimately will just hurt the people it's trying to help. In fact, (I know this really IS a Republican talking point, but I think it's true anyway), the government tends to hurt the people it's trying to help.
And, like a well-adjusted adult who isn't easily offended, I am doing the mature thing and ignoring your constant attacks on my religion of choice. You could almost say I am turning the other cheek.
#24
Quote ChicagoMatt:I live that teaching as well. I think the difference is where we put our faith. I see a problem, I donate to the church to help with that problem, and I see the immediate results.
ChicagoMatt ~ Yes, you've already mentioned that; and, yes I've already told you what I think about that. As the ancient Chinese proverb goes, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." That is how I envision "...doing to the least of my brothers." There is nothing like the gift of empowerment. Handouts only lead to more handouts and result in a permanent class of the disempowered. The only people who benefit from that are your church. It makes them look good at the expense of others.
#25
Matt's repeating that conservative shuck'n jive bull crap about government we've all been hearing forever, or so it seems. You know the mantra: how inept government is, how incompetent and untrustworthy and what a bumbling disaster it is; that gubmint only "hurts" those it is "trying to help", that gubmint can't do anything right, that gubmint should be small enough to "drown in a bathtub" and blah-blah…
Just the same tired old neo-con BS talking points they've hammered at us since the 1980s, to convince us that gubmint is evil… all so that they can steal what's left of the commons and privatize everything.
What these government-bashers conveniently overlook is that a government is only as good as the people running it. Vote for riff-raff, and riff-raff is what you get.
After thirty years of hearing this toxic drivel broadcast through the corporate airwaves, parroted by the impressionable and gullible among us, we have thirty-somethings and twenty-somethings like Matt carrying the torch for the next generation of self absorbed, sanctimonious ditto heads who think a privatized post office or fire department would be swell, who say that anything a gubmint can do a church could do better, who think prayer belongs in places like the classroom or the courtroom, who tell us that if some of us don't like it that's too bad, that we should keep our mouths shut anyway and behave like "adults".
Matt describes himself as a "well-adjusted adult who isn't easily offended", and says he's "doing the mature thing" and "ignoring" our "constant attacks" on his "religion of choice". While claiming moral superiority, he dismisses our concerns about the growing gap between rich and poor in this country, accusing us progressives of only being jealous of the one percent.
In the nice cushy neighborhood where Matt resides, he doesn't see anyone around him getting "screwed into a life of hardship by some elitist conspiracy" (as he describes it). Matt thinks everything is dandy just as it is, that the working poor and their allies should stop complaining and spoiling the party. In post after post, Matt asserts that as long as he, his family, friends and neighbors are all prospering and happy, it doesn't matter if others are left out; too bad for them… "But do you see how, if this world I was born into has been fairly good to me, I might not want it to change?" he implores, before going on to smugly assert: "Even if there is some evil elitist conspiracy to control everything and everyone - apparently I've been selected to be one of the ones that they placate with a decent life." To top it all off, in one of his next posts he claims to be "turning the other cheek". So nice and Christian of him!
I don't know how much more of this shit I can stomach right now. Maybe I need to take a break from it and chill for awhile… - Aliceinwonderland
#26
Handouts only lead to more handouts and result in a permanent class of the disempowered.
Isn't that the Conservative argument against welfare? Isn't one of their talking points that Democrats love welfare because it makes people dependent on the government? Why not empower people with school vouchers? Give them the power to choose where their kids get to go to school?
The only people who benefit from that are your church.
We don't only serve other Catholics. We serve anyone in need. They don't even have to come to the church - we deliver meals to people who can't leave their houses too.
#27
I really am sincerely sorry if I'm offending you Alice. For what it's worth, my personal vote doesn't matter where I live. IL isn't exactly a swing state.
#28
Matt, I'm sure that you're a very nice guy to your family, friends and pupils, and quite amiable to those who know you. But I sincerely believe the ideology you espouse is a major factor in what is destroying this country. - AIW
#29
Chi Matt -- Thom points out, often, how churches solving the poverty problem does not work. The 1% love that solution and push it.
The factual points that Thom points out are how dedicated South America has been dedicated to helping the poor and how insufficient it is. The other point that I can remember that Thom uses is that the 5 billion the republicans cut from the food stamp program (they wanted to do 32 billion) is equal to the sum total of all the charitable work that churches have done (some of these details may be off due to senior moments).
#30
DAM -- You need to join the real world (LOL).
Quote ancient Chinese:"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and he will sit all day in a boat drinking beer.
#31
Chi Matt -- You really need to read more. A good one "Do not Ask what Good We Do: Inside the US House of Representatives" by Robert Draper.
Quote Chi Matt:Maybe that's the problem - I don't see anyone around me being screwed into a life of hardship. At least, not by some big elitist conspiracy.
Mr. Draper describes the meeting amongst top republicans in the Caucus Room Restaurant on Jan 20, 2009; the night of Obama's inaugration. The content of the meeting was to make Obama a one term president by blocking everything he proposed (I may have a detail twisted a little). I think the 390 filibusters during Obama's 1st term is evidence they were not just talking. Later, I remember a congressman (R) was drinking too much and mentioned he could not support a jobs bill because it would make Obama look good.
The Powell memo, whose pages were stamped confidential, sent out to the 1% in 70's is another example of some reading you need to do. I know you have said you plan to read the "Crash of 2016" where this is described. I am just saying it wil improve your eyesight to see the people around you being screwed into a life of hardship.
#32
Do you feel that, perhaps, as good as the Progressive agenda may be, they push people away when they start mocking people's religious beliefs? Beliefs which, for some, are held closer to their hearts than any political leanings? If a little over 80% of Americans believe in some sort of diety/afterlife (I hate to use the word Religion, because Atheism is also a religion), do you think people like the two plaintiffs in the recent Supreme Court ruling on prayer in town council meetings actually push people further to the Right?
Yes, I know the righties use this as a wedge issue to divide us. There is a reason they use it. It works. The same way lefties use class envy - it works.
Or, to do the antethesis, do you think that, as good as a Conservative agenda may be, they push people away by attacking undocumented workers?
#33
Quote ChicagoMatt:Isn't that the Conservative argument against welfare? Isn't one of their talking points that Democrats love welfare because it makes people dependent on the government? Why not empower people with school vouchers?
ChicagoMatt ~ I'm sorry. I haven't' been very clear have I? When I say "empower" people the last thing I am talking about is using public funds to send them to your church to be indoctrinated into organized religious nonsense. That is the most "disempowering" thing you can do to someone--especially a child. It has no impact on the livelihood at all and only causes them deep personal confusion.
Remember, I'm a product of both parochial and public education. If I had it all to do again I would go public all the way. Better environment, better resources, better equipment, better education, and no religious indoctrination. Children should never be fed only one side of any unprovable belief system. That is child abuse. Obviously the Roman Catholic Church has a proud tradition of having no problem with child abuse. Only when a person becomes an adult are they capable of making their own informed personal belief choices.
When I say "empower" people I mean curing our unemployment problem by forcing huge corporations to return our manufacturing base to this country. I'm talking about strengthening and encouraging labor unions for all types of labor markets. I'm talking about free housing, job training and increasing job skills in unemployed adults as a free service by the state. I'm talking about raising the minimum wage so people don't have to drain our commons just to be able to afford to have a job. That "empowerment" requires the full resources of "We the People" and should never be pawned off or referred to any "private" source. It is the private sector that has caused all these problems in the first place in order to minimize labor costs in order to maximize profits. The private sector has no interest in "empowering" anyone other than itself. The private sector needs to be muzzled and kept on a short leash as a fundamental part of the "empowerment" process. Only "We the People" share the vested interest of "empowering" each other.
#34
When I say "empower" people the last thing I am talking about is using public funds to send them to your church to be indoctrinated
I have two responses to that:
1. I could argue that every public school indoctinates their students. Not acknowledging the existence of a God is a form of Agnosticism. Any parent could make that argument - that teaching their students something that goes against their beliefs is indoctrination. Serving certain foods, letting students pass out Valentines, having Saturdays and Sundays (Judeo-Christian Holy Days) off every week, those are all forms of Indoctrination if you get sensitive enough about it. What if someone from a strictly religious culture objects to their child being taught by a woman? Someone's rights/beliefs are going to have to give way.
2. Suppose my school wasn't parochial. There are private, non-religious schools in Chicago. Would you support parents having the right to send their tax dollars to that school along with their children? Suppose my school took down the crosses and didn't go to mass every week. If this school was just like a public school in every way except the class size and the union. Would you support it then?
I'm a product of both parochial and public education.Aren't we all basing our beliefs on our own experiences? I am a product of public education. The Catholic Church and my school has been very good to me, but I joined as an adult. It's my understanding that it's changed A LOT in the last 30 years. (like the rest of the world.)
#35
Chi Matt -- Your replies seem to ignore the "We the People" part of our form of government. "We the People" feel it is an absolute necessity to indoctrinate our children in "We the People".
#36
I can see your point. Then, as always, the question becomes, "what level of government should handle this?" The right is quick to point out - and I agree with this - that the Department of Education doesn't "educate" anyone.
Of course, the next four lines are "We the people of the United States...."
But good luck coming to a consensus at the federal level about what should be taught in schools. As a private school teacher, I am not beholden to Common Core standards, but I still hear shit about them anyway.
But I'm getting off topic...
#37
Hey Matt,
Class envy? Nope, sorry kid.
Taking back something that's rightfully yours is not about class envy, it's about survival; beyond that, simple fairness. It might make you happy to ignore, shrug off, even deny how this system is rigged against most of us, how it favors the rich and is predatory by design. Might make you feel better, insulating yourself in layer upon layer of denial. But the reality is, this economy is rigged against most Americans. More and more of us find ourselves stuck in this paycheck-to-paycheck purgatory from which there is no escape, where you must work longer and harder just to get by. No sick leave, no child care, no maternity leave, no paid vacation time… But for the top 1% it's party time, where every day's a holiday! And that's where we are. Theocracy and Plutocracy, fraternal twins from hell. You know the saying, "denial ain't a river in Egypt"! Yeah, Matt. Try contemplating that, if you dare.
And by the way, we'll quit bashing your religion when you quit telling us progressives what we "think" and "feel". That a deal?
Peace, love an' grooviness… - Aliceinwonderland
#38
Taking back something that's rightfully yours
That's the Conservative argument for less taxes / smaller government. If you earned the money, it's rightfully yours. Even if you earned a lot, it's still rightfully yours.
That's also the Republican anti-amnesty for undocumented workers line. "They have no right to be here, no right to work here. Take those jobs back." I don't buy into that, buy the way. I am very much for amnesty.
But the reality is, this economy is rigged against most Americans.More than in the past? Yes. Most Americans? No. But yes, I do think we should do something to bring back high-paying manufacturing jobs. Trying to make low-skill retail or service industry jobs replace those higher manufacturing incomes is not the way to go.
Which leads me to another question. I get that Reagan changed everything. Were things in decline before then? Is there some ideal time period when things (the economy, education, upward mobility) were actually good?
And by the way, we'll quit bashing your religion when you quit telling us progressives what we "think" and "feel". That a deal?Deal. I'll use the verb "say" instead. Or keep bashing my religion, it doesn't phase me. Not that anyone cares or needs to know, but my religious choices were solidified by three specific events (seeing a spirit and being at two people's bedsides as they passed. One of those people was my own father, and it was my decision to turn off the life support.) There is literally nothing anyone could ever say or do to shake my faith.
#39
That old corporate-fascist mantra, Matt, is what you preach, and I'll have none of it. If this is where your faith lies, then the hell with you. This privatize-everything, destroy-the-government crusade is evil, it is dangerous, and I consider anyone endorsing that as a legitimate social order and way of life to be a fascist. Sieg heil, Chicago Matt! Because these privately owned entities taking over the commons are answerable to no one but the owners and the shareholders. When government is functioning like a government is supposed to function (as in the USA, uh, supposedly…) it protects and defends the interests of its citizens first and foremost. Since this corporate-fascist, hostile takeover, our government and our country have turned into something I barely recognize anymore. This transformation evolved gradually, over decades, thus escaping the notice of anyone in their thirties or younger. But I'm in my sixties. I've been around long enough to watch what was largely a thriving, prosperous citizenry demoted to serfdom as this country slowly morphed into the banana republic shit hole that it is today, for so many of us.
Conservatives want us all to believe the working poor are in their situation because they're not smart enough, or they're lazy or whatever. But I've seen, heard about, read about engineers, college professors, people with PhDs, stuck in paycheck-to-paycheck purgatory and living on the margins. The bigger grows the hole in the safety-net portion of the commons, the more of us keep falling through it. Surprise, surprise.
Anyway Matt, sorry. We're not buying what you're selling. Those who get paid $7000 (or even $500) for an hour's "work" have an awful lot staked in the myth that they "earned" it when, more often than not, it's the workers "below" them who earned it, being the ones who designed, created and/or manufactured the product, or provided the actual service that customers are paying for.
The sense of entitlement you conservatives uphold and project outward is breathtaking. You can take your privatizing, government-bashing screed somewhere else, far as I'm concerned. You've made your positions abundantly clear. "Me first and screw you." "Me-my-mine". You've given us all quite a dose of it over this past week, since diving into the discussion seemingly from nowhere. But we're not buying it anyway. - Aliceinwonderland
#40
Quote ChicagoMatt:Answering questions with questions - always a good debate move. I teach it to my students, along with "taking away your opponant's main point before they get to say it", and "making your opponant agree on something basic, then attaching your argument to that agreement." Sometimes, when I am listening to Thom, I cringe when they get right-wing callers that get painted into a rhetorical corner that way. Conservative talkers do it to their left-wing callers too.
Sometimes questions need to be asked and are an appropriate response to questions. Sometimes calling a legitimate question a debate move is a disingenuous debating tactic.
#41
Quote ChicagoMatt:I don't see the elites of the world as cracking whips over the backs of the lowest-paid workers either. Like I said before, my Bible tells me not to judge people. So I'm not judging those who have more than me, nor those who have less.
Maybe that's the problem - I don't see anyone around me being screwed into a life of hardship. At least, not by some big elitist conspiracy.
Are you saying that you're some sheltered privileged brat who's unaware that people are being screwed over and living lives of hardship. I'm so surprised to find that out!
#42
Quote ChicagoMatt:Progressives are so sold on this "employers are out to get the employees" idea that they see themselves as some sort of white knights, out there saving the "wage slaves" from their masters. Nevermind if those "wage slaves" may be perfectly happy the way they are.
Again, do you think there is some memo that goes out to people who have employees that tells them all how they are going to screw over their workers that day? Some secret handshake and password the "elites" have? Do you think the CEO of McDonalds really hates the low-wage employees? Or, more likely, he or she doesn't give a damn about them. They aren't out to get you, they just don't care one way or the other. Not very Christian of them, if they claim that as their faith. But it's not my place to judge.
Matt, have you ever worked in management, say at your McDonald's? If you had you would've gotten some of those memos. Aside from the fact that literally millions of such memos have been uncovered and leaked and are continuing to every day, you don't even need those "smoking guns", you can just ask almost anybody who works in management if they aren't instructed to exploit their workers to the fullest, ethics be dammed.
Check out Charlie Kernahgan's and others' anti sweatshop campaigns where they uncover that all the wholesome, whitebread American household name businesses (Nike, GAP, Converse, Levi's, Hane's, JC Penny, Puma - Walmart is a particularly big offender.) depend on Asian sweatshops - some with barbed wire fences and guard towers to keep those workers who are "perfectly happy the way they are" from escaping and regular beatings for missing production quotas
exerpt from Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard School-
"The children report being routinely slapped and beaten, sometimes falling down from exhaustion, forced to work 12 to 14 hours a day, even some all-night, 19-to-20-hour shifts, often seven days a week, for wages as low as 6 ½ cents an hour. The wages are so wretchedly low that many of the child workers get up at 5:00 a.m. each morning to brush their teeth using just their finger and ashes from the fire, since they cannot afford a toothbrush or toothpaste.
The workers say that if they could earn just 36 cents an hour, they could climb out of misery and into poverty, where they could live with a modicum of decency."
- because they don't want to pay fair (How can anyone ever know what fair is?), to Americans, and the lengths they go to to keep knowledge of their labor pracices from the American public.
The same thing happens right here in Chicago. I was a labor organizer for 9 years organizing poor laborers and temporary workers (who are used to defeat collective bargaining and circumvent labor law by outsourcing hitherto fair wage [how can anyone ever know what that means?] jobs on a massive scale in the obvious "conspiracy" to destroy the middle class) exposing the thousands of sweatshops right herein our unfair city. Again, those sweatshops were producing for Marshall Field's, L'Oreal Shampoo, The Chicago Tribune, H2O, The Cheesecake Factory, etc. and many miscellaneuos contractors that were supplying the household names.
I have a friend who studied "Industrial Engineering" at Northwestern. Industrial engineering has nothing to do with the engines of industry. It has all to do with how to exploit workers without regard for ethics and often willfully, directly counter to ethics and quite explicit instructions on doing just that. My friend was completely disgusted with it and now works with the lefty labor movement (Our Walmart, Fight for Fifteen and such) in Chicago.
I have several other friends who went to business school and left in disgust as they were instructed, often euphsmistically, to disregard ethics in their conduct in business.
Actually, the "secret memos" are not very secret at all. Although the big business PR services deny and keep on the down low the actual practices and intentions of business and try to keep knowledge about them from the general public, business leaders are quite open about them with one another. When I was in the Teamster reform movement I hung around with ISO members and read their publications. We in the movement and the socialists I hung around with got their information about the big business conspiracy right from the pages of Businessweek and Fortune magazine, where they were explicitly laid out, without having to read between the lines at all. Noam Chomsky recommends the same thing to get the real story quite simply. Business media presumes everyone reading their publications is either in on the grand scam or wants to be and anyway, they want large circulation as well as real relevance and exclusivity is not a way to achive that. Thus, as Lenin said, "We're going to hang the capitalists and they're going to sell us the rope.", the capitalists greed will be their own undoing in their conflict with the people.
#43
[quote=ChicagoMatt]
Do you think the CEO of McDonalds really hates the low-wage employees? Or, more likely, he or she doesn't give a damn about them. They aren't out to get you, they just don't care one way or the other. Not very Christian of them, if they claim that as their faith. But it's not my place to judge.
[/qoute]
The CEO does have a fair amount of contempt for their workers and has to to mistreat them so and to consider them some beasts or alien, inferior other not deserving of consideration as a human beings. I've known business leaders to routinely laugh and smirk at their workers calling them "n-words" or "wetbacks" (regardless of their actual race) or variations of "white trash".
#44
The fact is, Matt, there can be no ethics in business as there can be no ethics in a competitive society. Ethics are an impediment to competitiveness. If one competitor gains an advantage using an unethical practice then all other competitors must also adopt the same practice or be at a serious disadvantage - if not be entirely done in. Thus any ethics in a competitive society and any ethics in business must be handed down by government in the form of laws and regulations. We determine what those ethics, and thus, what those laws and regulations are to be through the democratic process.
#45
CHI MATT -- Are you confusing consensus with democracy?
Quote Chi Matt:But good luck coming to a consensus at the federal level about what should be taught in schools.
"We the People" does not mean consensus.
#46
Chi Matt -- I have pointed out that the economy was in an ideal period from New Deal to Reagan.
Quote Chi Matt:Which leads me to another question. I get that Reagan changed everything. Were things in decline before then? Is there some ideal time period when things (the economy, education, upward mobility) were actually good?
The easy demonstration of this is a chart in R. Reich's book "Aftershock". It is a chart plotting productivity and median wage. These two metrics follow each other until Reagan. Actually, they start to diverge under Jimmy Carter. Thom often points out that Jimmy Carter started drinking the Thatcher kool-aid.
I think Larry Beinhart has come up with a better set of metrics. Larry's metrics, in my opinion, more closely represent the success of the market place as described by Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations". The metrics that Mr. Beinhart suggest to use are the Dow (every capitalist's favorite), the GDP (every economist's albatross), the median wage and the number of jobs (inflation adjusted). L. Beinhart goes on to show that every time, in the income tax history of the US, the change in these metrics is positive the top tax rate is above 50%.
Incidentally, about the social mobility metric, the US was in the top 5 of social mobility before Reagan. Now, we are near the bottom of industrialized countries (i.e. OECD).
#47
Matt, have you ever worked in management, say at your McDonald's?
Yes. I was in a management position at a retail chain for about four or five years, after getting my B.A. That's what led me to go back and get my M.A. in teaching. I didn't like my retail experience for several reasons, partially because of the way I had to do scheduling. I was in charge of doing the weekly schedule for the 80 or so employees (depended on the season, how many people we had). The way it worked, with this company at least, was they took the average weekly sales for the same week's previous three years, and gave us a certain number of hours we could schedule people based on the expected sales. Typically, I had around 2,000 hours to "give out" each week. Most of our employees made between $9-12 an hour. I was the higest paid hourly emplyee at around $15 an hour. The next step after me was salaried.
If we were over on hours, or under in sales, I'd have to start telling people to go home, which was hard to do when I knew those few hours of work were important for those people. I hated doing that.
That also usually meant that our busiest time - Saturday - was also when we had to cut the most people. If you ever get crappy customer service on the weekends, that might be part of the reason. My management experience led me to become one of those people who writes complain letters to companies for bad customer experience. I've become somewhat of a grumpy old man when it comes to shopping.
The higher-ups always told me that the biggest problem with the company was high turn over. According to them, it cost $800 to "train" a new employee, but 75% of them were gone within a year. But there were always new people to take their place. We did all of our hiring via an online application, which averaged more than 600 applicants in the pool at any given time. (This was in the mid 2000s, and that "pool" was for all of the stores on this side of Chicago.)
I got a lot of inside information because they were grooming me for a District Manager position. If I stayed with it, I'd probably be in charge of a dozen or so stores now. But it wasn't for me. In the five years since I left that store, the entire 80-person crew has been replaced.
I can see your point. The idea that the upper-management's (the salaried people) job is to get the most productivety from their workers for the least price seemed like normal operating procedure. Maybe it's a generational thing, since, again, this is the only system someone my age would know? Teh idea of being an employee being loyal to a company, or vice-versa, seems old-fashioned. I'm NOT saying it's WRONG. I'm just saying it seems like that all changed a long time ago. If I were unable to escape that retail hourly-wage trap. I'd be very disgruntled. I can see some of the corporate side's view as well. If the retail job was automated, which these were (the computer interface was idiot-proof), then why bother trying to retain employees? Know what I mean?
I can see how some people call this a "race to the bottom".
#48
Sharing his experience working for McDonald's years ago, Matt describes how the "higher-ups" would say employee turnover was the company's biggest problem, along with the cost of training new workers. Well, duhh!
Like virtually anything, Matt, ya git what'cha pay for. Overworked and underpaid employees (at least some of whom, beyond underpaid, also happen to be victims of wage theft) are not gonna stick around for long. They will continually be seeking better opportunities elsewhere, while swarms of new applicants keep showing up to pound at the gate. - Aliceinwonderland
#49
Quote Aliceinwonderland:Like virtually anything, Matt, ya git what'cha pay for.
Aliceinwonderland/ChicagoMatt ~ The CEO's already know that. That is why it is called "a disposable labor force." At $800 to train someone new what is that really? Maybe two weeks of the cost of paying a livable wage. It is still far cheaper in the long fun than paying a livable wage which is why if left to their own McDonald's will never change their wage and hiring policy. They need to have their arm twisted and the only entity capable of doing that is Uncle Sam.
PS Now with our double digit unemployment rate there are a plethora of people in the labor force who already have experience and need a minimum of training; thus, reducing this "problem" to a minimum that was never seen during the tenure of Matt. More reason than ever to raise the minimum wage.
#50
Quote ChicagoMatt:I can see your point. The idea that the upper-management's (the salaried people) job is to get the most productivety from their workers for the least price seemed like normal operating procedure. Maybe it's a generational thing, since, again, this is the only system someone my age would know? Teh idea of being an employee being loyal to a company, or vice-versa, seems old-fashioned. I'm NOT saying it's WRONG. I'm just saying it seems like that all changed a long time ago. If I were unable to escape that retail hourly-wage trap. I'd be very disgruntled. I can see some of the corporate side's view as well. If the retail job was automated, which these were (the computer interface was idiot-proof), then why bother trying to retain employees? Know what I mean?
In sociology, Karl Marx is considered a "conflict theorist", i.e., someone who believes that people's vested interess, concerns and purposes, in a society like ours are fundamenally in conflict with one another. The tennant, the landlord; the buyer, the merchant; the employee and employer all have purposes and vested interests fundamentally in conflict and thus regard each other with a fair degree of emnity. Each is trying to get the most in return for the least and there isn't much room for ethics and, given the competitive nature of our society, ethics are seen as foolishness.
Matt, if you'd've been working in managemet some other places - like UPS, where I worked at 17 in the '70s - you'd've been instructed to do some very unethical things. Essentially, you'd've been told to push your people to and beyond their limit to get the very limit of their productivity.
Where I worked recently, at an assembly line, quasi sweatshop through a temp agency, where there was no union - or any kind of - representation for the workers' concerns or even any attention paid to labor and safety laws. If people try to be dilligent to be conscientious employees to satisfy their bosses in a spirit of cooperation with them and start to work hard and fast, trying to do their best, the bosses simply speed up the line until nobody can keep up again and then verbally abuse the people for not keeping up.
The bosses have strict production quotas that are calculated to be barely reacheable and only if nobody is afforded any time to even scratch their noses, so to speak. Older and more frail workers are weeded out and discarded like so much refuse.
My friend, who was a Teamster union truck driver, once said to me, "You can replace all the workers everywhere with machines and have everything fully automated, there's only one problem with that. Machines don't buy anything."
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
Mueller's favorite place to pray (written about in "Prophet's Way"), and the roof of the room where the Last Supper is reputed to have happened.
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"In an age rife with media-inspired confusion and political cowardice, we yearn for a decent, caring, deeply human soul whose grasp of the problems confronting us provides a light by which we can make our way through the quagmire of lies, distortions, pandering, and hollow self-puffery that strips the American Dream of its promise. How lucky we are, then, to have access to the wit, wisdom, and willingness of Thom Hartmann, who shares with us here that very light, grown out of his own life experience."
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"If you wonder why and when giant corporations got the power to reign supreme over us, here’s the story."
From Screwed:
"Once again, Thom Hartmann hits the bull’s eye with a much needed exposé of the so-called ‘free market.’ Anyone concerned about the future of our nation needs to read Screwed now."
I really need to stop checking this blog at times when I know I won't be able to reply. Then I just spend the time when I should be doing something else eager to get back to a keyboard and respond. I don't know about anyone else, but I get excited when I see new comments on a blog. I like to feel a little personal responsibility for getting this one over 200 comments. But anyway...
Hm. I think if you were to ask a baby boomer, they would say something like "self actualization" or "personal growth". But nowadays, it's more about "making sure you get a good job. Preferably white collar and six figures." That's probably a byproduct of the shrinking middle class. If the income curve is moving from a bell shape to a "m" shape, you're going to want to make sure you are on the right side of that "m". The higher-income side.