Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn 2007, over 37 million Americans, or 12.5 percent of the US population, lived below the federal poverty line--$21,200 for a family of four (well below the income truly required to make ends meet in our economy.) And now, as we head into this deepening recession, we're looking at a jump in the number of people living in poverty.
According to a new report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), based on Goldman Sachs' projection of a 9 percent unemployment rate by the end of 2009, the number of Americans living in poverty will increase from 7.5 to 10.3 million people, of which 3.3 million total will be poor children, with 1.5 to 2 million more children living in families with incomes below half of the poverty line, or what is called "deep poverty". (CBPP's numbers are consistent with the rise in poverty relative to the increase in unemployment over the last three recessions.)
What's even more ominous about the current recession as compared to those of the past, the CBPP report warns, is the truly depleted state of the safety net: "Because this recession is likely to be deep and the government safety net for very poor families who lack jobs has weakened significantly in recent years, increases in deep poverty in this recession are likely to be severe."
CBPP points to some early indicators that "poverty is now climbing rapidly." Food stamp caseloads rose by 2.6 million people between August 2007 and August 2008. In 25 states, at least one in five children is now receiving food stamps. According to the USDA's annual report on food security, nearly one in eight Americans struggled with hunger in 2007 -- which means "36.2 million adults and children... didn't have the money or assistance to get enough food to maintain active, healthy lives." 691,000 children "suffered a substantial disruption in the amount of food they typically eat" -- a more than 50 percent increase from 2006 and the highest number since 1998. James Weill, president of the Food Research Action Committee, said that the current economic downturn isn't reflected in the USDA report on hunger and 2008 numbers "almost certainly will be far worse."
In addition to the challenges posed by a tattered safety net, many non-profits are already stretched to capacity at a moment when the donors they depend on are either less able or less willing to give. According to Paul Light, professor of public service at NYU, over the next six months up to 100,000 of the 1 million currently operating non-profits will fail.
While the social service sector is experiencing pay cuts, layoffs and failures, the military is enjoying a hiring boom during the recession that we now "officially" know (as opposed to what common sense long told us) began last December. The Washington Post reports, "The economic downturn and rising unemployment rate are making the military a more attractive option, Pentagon officials say. In some cases, the peace of mind that comes with good benefits and a regular paycheck is overcoming concerns about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which any new enlistee is likely to join." For some, it's clearly a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. In the past fiscal year, the Army recruited more than 80,000 soldiers while the number of unemployed people grew by 2.8 million people over the past 12 months.
In addition to its projections on the impact of this recession, the CBPP report is invaluable for its clear blueprint on what the government can do to protect the most vulnerable people hit by this downturn, while also stimulating the economy. These measures include:
- a temporary increase in food stamp benefits;
- additional rental assistance through the housing voucher program -- cities and school districts are already reporting an increase in the number of homeless families;
- expand and extend unemployment benefits.Fewer than 40 percent of unemployed workers now receive unemployment benefits, in many states low-wage and part-time workers (especially women) are ineligible when laid off
- provide significant fiscal relief to states -- states aren't permitted to run deficits, even in recessions, and cuts will further damage the ability to meet rising demand for assistance while also weakening the economy.
Many of these recommendations are expected to be part of the next stimulus package -- the long promised help for Main Street after weeks in which we've witnessed a splurge of nearly $1.4 trillion in spending on Wall Street. Food stamps, extended unemployment benefits, and fiscal aid to revenue-starved states will all figure prominently, as well as repairing public infrastructure and investing in green technologies.
As to the question of how large such a stimulus needs to be in order to be effective, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz suggests "at least $600 billion to $1 trillion over two years" in a New York Times op-ed on Sunday. Stiglitz discounts "latter-day Hooverites [who] will say the soaring deficit and national debt mean we cannot afford a large stimulus package." "But," he writes, "what you do with the money counts, too. The money needs to be spent carefully to ensure that every dollar provides as much stimulus now as possible while also contributing to long-term growth." That's why Stiglitz calls for restructuring the troubled Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that has doled out nearly $350 billion to banks to get them lending again to little avail.
I would suggest, too, that the defense budget needs to be looked at with fresh thinking. Do we really need a $500 billion budget -- and an additional $200 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- "nearly equal to all of the rest of the world's defense budgets combined"? A budget that represents 54 percent of all discretionary spending? The Congressional Progressive Caucus will no doubt organize around Congressman Barney Frank's call for a 25 percent cut in the defense budget -- approximately $150 billion in annual spending-- or another defense budget they collectively agree on, and reach out to friends outside of the Beltway to pursue an inside-outside strategy for substantial change.
One quick example where savings could be achieved -- the $13 billion a year missile defense program which a new Pentagon report study suggests is "plagued by mismanagement and corruption [and] has deployed weapons that don't work against threats that don't yet exist," according to Ploughshares President Joseph Cirincione and Victoria Samson, senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information. Cirincione pointed to even bigger savings, telling me: "We could save $21 billion a year by going from the 10,000 nuclear warheads we now have at the cost of $31 billion annually, to a force of 1000 total weapons... for about $9.7 billion. Still enough to destroy the world, but at one-third the cost. Cutting to $3-5 billion a year on missile defense programs would save $8-10 billion more. Total from both -- $29-31 billion a year.... And this is just from the nuclear related programs. Imagine how much we could save if we really got serious!"
If we are to rebuild our nation by passing a massive stimulus package, investing in a green economy, revamping healthcare, and strengthening our frayed social compact, we will need to make some bold choices. That kind of real change is going to demand a smart and focused inside-outside strategy.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Speaking of slashing the defense budget, isn't it time also to look at the failed "war on drugs" in the third largest recipient of military aid from the US, Colombia? Or are the multi-national banks now so dependent on laundered drug money that this is impossible?
Posted by HAL9000 at 12/03/2008 @ 12:28pm
Unfortunately KVH, what you dream of will take years to put into place. The first stimulus package the gov't issued barely made a dent and now you believe they should try it again? When are you libs going to learn that throwing good money away after bad ideas never works.
This is not our first carneval ride nor it will it be our last. At some point, the gov't needs to stop and realize that they can't fix every broken company. I think it's time for us to pull the plug on grandma and stop all life saving measures. We've done all that we can do and now it's time to let them fade away gracefully.
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 12:38pm
I think it may be prudent to investigate the waste that exists due to the massive privatization of both military and intelligence services worldwide. Both of these areas are saturated with former public servants and officials and it is time to stop ignoring this conflict of interest.
Posted by HAL9000 at 12/03/2008 @ 12:42pm
Superb, comprehensive article, Kay Vee...
"But," he writes, "what you do with the money counts, too. The money needs to be spent carefully to ensure that every dollar provides as much stimulus now as possible while also contributing to long-term growth."
...too...?
It's hard to fathom... this disinterested assumption that value, and appropriate investment for the betterment of the economy and living standards... is 'also' important... like it's an 'also ran' to some much more important personal freedom than survival... and the mutual benefits that a genuine economy nurture and evoke.
Poverty is not necessarily the main problem here... for often it is the very essence of efficient economic principles in action... personal choices and flesh and blood altruisms... but the rampant assault on frugality by 'money gamers' probably ought to be given more attention... and deterred.
Posted by ttr at 12/03/2008 @ 12:54pm
$21,200 for a family of four (well below the income truly required to make ends meet in our economy)
i disagree.
it's tough, but if one learns to eat well, it can be done quite cheaply.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2008 @ 12:55pm
Posted by HAL9000 at 12/03/2008 @ 12:42pm
HAL the elephant in the room is not the millitary. Even if Uncle Sam could pull back on every millitary and intellegence service agency, it still won't be enough to swing the economy back the other way. Unfortunately, (IMO) the buggaboos that's causing our most immediate problems are the huge trade deficits and domestic spending. We're spending more and producing less and we need to stop before we truly put ourselves in the poor house.
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 12:59pm
"We're spending more and producing less and we need to stop before we truly put ourselves in the poor house."----Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 12:59pm
What does that MEAN exactly, specifically, ACOOK? Are you talking about consumerism or government spending?
If government spending, what do you propose to cut...in detail?
If consumerism, how does a decline in demand for goods and services impact those who PRODUCE goods and services?
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 1:42pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/03/2008 @ 1:13pm
While some of that has merit, you get the same question as ACOOK...
1. How does a decline in consumption impact the national economy?
also
2. How do those in Compton (LA), the South Side (Chicago), Harlem and the Bronx (NYC)....grow their own food?
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 1:44pm
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 12:59pm
True this won't solve the economic crisis, but it will help. I'm talking about areas of defense spending to re-evaluate. Obviously other pieces of the economic puzzle need to be reconfigured as well.
Posted by HAL9000 at 12/03/2008 @ 1:54pm
But LL, I believe yours and FZ's self reliance is a threat to KvH, not the solution, if practiced in material quantites.
Self reliance often is a result of a life centered in God's light, not that of the State.
Besides, it's not "fair" to those victims who are unable to be self reliant. And self reliant people are more difficult to exploit. If families are turning off the TV and cooking and playing together, how can they know the beauty of Paris Hilton's world, or what they should buy? I mean, next thing you know those families might start praying together! When they should be borrowing money to make themselves happy!
No, the stimulous of the economy using tax payer's 'revenue' has the sole purpose of creating dependency, further justifying the dominance of the state over individuals.
In the end, this is really all about the struggle for our souls, not our material lives.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/03/2008 @ 2:00pm
from Nation poll post:
Not so strange that the 1.2 mil refers to both lost jobs and lost homes. Could it be that there is some overlap there? What's for sure and what isn't being stated more clearly by the media-- is that 96% of home mortgages are being paid on time. Yet it's that 4% and the 'anti-American' "UNIONS" that are to blame... (for the Recession)
And so the mass transfer of wealth from the 'have-less' to the 'have-most', marches on... (and too easily)
It's so unfortunate that the one major GOP new con success was their manipulation of the ordinary American into acceptance of Corporate Socialism over his/her own best interest, those (lost): "Deferred hopes and dreams...".
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/03/2008 @ 2:10pm
As long as we give men the power to print money out of nothing and loan it out for real interest, we will experience booms and busts and the usuery that is central banking.
Any other talk of change is without foundation. Economically, Congress wants to continuously remove tumors from a patient that Congress will not allow to stop smoking. Business is too good for the surgeon to change anything.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/03/2008 @ 2:11pm
It's called regulation.
Saying government regulates best that regulates least is like saying the same of our hospitals or our police.
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/03/2008 @ 2:19pm
--If consumerism, how does a decline in demand for goods and services impact those who PRODUCE goods and services?--... by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 1:42pm
Therein lies the crux, Mask.
The 'volume = well-being' procurement is flawed on many fronts... yet our economy is evaluated for its health, and its success... and most of us purchase our daily bread... on these very assumptions.
Though I will be among the first to sing the praises of the efficiencies and waste reductions brought about by our capitalist foundations... there are many inefficiencies too, that can not go unaddressed indefinitely...
...such as 'bubbles', wages, environmental qualities, influences upon R & D, realistic evaluations of the total cost of sustained militarization, proper evaluations of lifestyle health issues, etc...
The illusion that money can be 'made' out of nothing... in a sense... completely removes the responsibility of conscientiousness from its rightful place in the investor's mind... and shows us how delusional capitalistic thinking can become if 'left to its own devices'...
Posted by ttr at 12/03/2008 @ 2:27pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/03/2008 @ 2:05pm
I'd just prefer some numbers, Larry.
Explain in acreage harvestable how a million people in urban Los Angeles "grow their own food"?
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 2:52pm
Posted by ttr at 12/03/2008 @ 2:27pm
Sounds like you and FREIHEIT ought to get together on our Federal Reserve system.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 2:54pm
by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 2:54pm...
No thanks... though I enjoy freiheit's interesting conjectures...
Sounds like you ought to read my post again and actually comment on it...;^)
Ooooh you're slick... and as perennial as couch grass..
Gotta love ya though... 'cause yer sooo precious!
d;^)
Posted by ttr at 12/03/2008 @ 3:08pm
What does that MEAN exactly, specifically, ACOOK? Are you talking about consumerism or government spending?
If government spending, what do you propose to cut...in detail?
If consumerism, how does a decline in demand for goods and services impact those who PRODUCE goods and services?
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 1:42pm
I'd say both need to tap down on thespending. Re-evaluations are needed for every industry.
The first area I would look at is our trade agreements. Currently the US is the worlds largest importor of goods and services and our top trading partners are Canada, China, Mexico, Japan and Germany.
Second, I would look at our science and technology sector. We waste billions of dollars on redundant, inefficient and outdated systems.
Thirdly, I would look at the energy sector. I know a lot of you think green is the way to go and that we can rid ourselves of being dependant on foreign oil. However, current administrative policies are too rigid and force limitations as to how far energy development is allowed to expand. What I'm trying to say is, why allow for the most costly alternative fuels - solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, electric batteries, or hydrogen to be the only sources of energy we must depend on? What about converting engery in the form of light into matter? Just a small amount of matter creates tremendous energy.
Fourth, transportation and communication.
Lastly, health and education. The waste these two sectors produce alone is enough to support serveral countries in Africa.
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 3:39pm
$21,200 for a family of four (well below the income truly required to make ends meet in our economy) i disagree. it's tough, but if one learns to eat well, it can be done quite cheaply. Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2008 @ 12:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person
that depends very much on where one lives. my yearly rent is $16,400, my health insurance is a subsidised $7,200, utilities, another $7,000. yes, eating can be done quite cheaply.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 3:56pm
Poverty is not necessarily the main problem here... Posted by ttr at 12/03/2008 @ 12:54pm
Maybe not for you, but I guess it is for all those who are their dealing with it.
I am impressed to read about the self sufficiency of some of the people here, lucky you all.
I would love to have a garden, and probably if I had one I would have the time to work in it too. In fact it is a dream we have (my partner and I) - wanting to save up for a place to plant trees and grow things...although saving up always seems like something only rich people can do. Between essentials like food, housing, education of children and basic clothing, there is no way to save. A great public school would be a start, save us quite a sum annually to put towards our garden, and perhaps we wouldn't feel so irked about paying the high taxes as we would feel like the gov. was actually doing something with the money they collect instead of lining the pickets of interested parties, wall street and shooting it away in useless bloody conflict. And by the way we don't have television, when choosing between cable etc and other essentials it doesn't even seem like a choice. Urban living is not necessarily a choice, more a necessity and the lesser of several evils. And I am sure we are some of the lucky ones.
I could go on, but my sense is that either one is preaching to the choir here or shouting at a brick wall...
Posted by marilynm at 12/03/2008 @ 4:00pm
--However, current administrative policies are too rigid and force limitations as to how far energy development is allowed to expand. --
by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 3:39pm...
So true. For me... the evidence of this is brought to light lately by the Ford Focus.
It seems Ford makes two different models of the same model... and while Americans can buy the European model if they want... we can not legally drive one on US hi-ways.
Regulation. Lobbies. Manipulation...
No sign of Ford's 50 MPG car.
Posted by ttr at 12/03/2008 @ 4:10pm
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 3:39pm
Well, ACOOk, still didn't get a lot of SPECIFICS from you...for instance-
"The first area I would look at is our trade agreements. Currently the US is the worlds largest importor of goods and services and our top trading partners are Canada, China, Mexico, Japan and Germany."
---Okay. Tariffs? If so how do you compensate the family who saves $2500 a year at Wal-mart who now loses that due to paying $80 a pair for shoes over $35 a pair?
"Second, I would look at our science and technology sector. We waste billions of dollars on redundant, inefficient and outdated systems."
---Where specifically do we waste billions in science and technology?
"What I'm trying to say is, why allow for the most costly alternative fuels - solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, electric batteries, or hydrogen to be the only sources of energy we must depend on? What about converting engery in the form of light into matter? Just a small amount of matter creates tremendous energy."
---??!?!!? So you think solar is a "most costly alternative"...but support "converting energy in the form of light into matter"?
Well first, I hope you mean "light into energy" because present 21st Century physics prohibit converting photons into protons, neutrons, and electrons. Second, isn't that "solar"?
"Fourth, transportation and communication."
---Specifically?
"Lastly, health and education. The waste these two sectors produce alone is enough to support serveral countries in Africa."
---Okay...where to cut?
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 4:17pm
Posted by ttr at 12/03/2008 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
VW has one. AND they have very strong unions over there. not to mention health care for everyone.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 4:17pm
Thank you dear lady. with a few exceptions like you Krugman and Klein I don't see the great investment by the corporate media exposing the ugly truth of a deindustrialized America. Is it because they perpetuated the lie of the great benefits of Globalization? John Edwards, "bless his horny soul" and Mario Como were right. It seems that raising tides don't lift all boats. A better bumper sticker would be that "Drain a lake to fill a swamp, you get two swamps".
Posted by julien38 at 12/03/2008 @ 4:23pm
There has been such a waste of money in regard to the war in Iraq.... thousands of lost lives and billions of dollars worth!! I'm all for the troops having the correct equipment, that is totally right, but this was a trumped up war that we should not have even been involved in from the beginning. It's about time this country started taking care of it's own, we have enough poverty and despair right here without spending money on other countries and needless wars all over the place. I see nothing wrong with helping out other countries, but I believe you should look after your own countrymen first.
Posted by Caj at 12/03/2008 @ 4:23pm
"Between essentials like food, housing, education of children and basic clothing, there is no way to save."
Posted by marilynm at 12/03/2008 @ 4:00pm
There are serveral ways to save. If you want to save on food, try preparing simple meals in under 30 mins, take leftovers for lunch, portion out breakfast cereals according to the serving size, prepare sandwiches, use coupons often and combine them with items on sale, or you can prepare meals that freeze well or can your favorite veggies and/or fruit. Try some of these options for 30 days (and skip the takeout) and you will pleasently surprised at how much you can save.
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 4:31pm
--Maybe not for you, but I guess it is for all those who are their dealing with it.--
by marilynm at 12/03/2008 @ 4:00pm...
Then again... maybe for me, too...:^{
Sorry I wasn't clearer... it's just that many people, like myself, are not titillated and 'turned on' at the prospect of riches... insofar as we realize that what is truly important to us is common decency and economic stability... as a right, not a privilege...
...and that society should be arranged so that it is possible for people to be 'less well off'... because their interests and motivations are literary, spiritual, artistic, musical, environmental, peaceful, etc... without being so prone and existentially vulnerable...
Be well!
Posted by ttr at 12/03/2008 @ 4:31pm
Ma'am:
While most of your readers don't realize this, our country is at war and most of our military has been or will be in harm's way. "Ah, the economy is bad, so let's slash the budget and give everyone a fish or turkey for the holidays."
Yes, the solution would be to gauge the military which is mandated to get most of its supplies from US industrial sources. In fact, defense spending is what keeps much of the limited industrial base and some of our manufacturing jobs alive.
But since this isn't consistent with your confused narrative, let's just cut the evil military and not be smart enough to count the second and third order effects of such actions. That would be change you probably would believe in.
Posted by Weyld1 at 12/03/2008 @ 4:53pm
While most of your readers don't realize this, our country is at war
we are well aware of this. we are also aware that these are wars of choice, and that one war was entered into on the basis of lies.
the Taleban did not attack us, and yet six years later we are still trying to punish them. we cannot afford these wars, and we cannot afford a bloated military.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 4:59pm
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 4:17pm
Mask, I don't know if tariffs are the answer and I also know retaining cheap labor to shore up your profits are the answer either.
You would be surprised at how much redundant technology we have and use. Companies like Oracle, SAP, IBM, Microsoft, Adobe, Symantec, MacAfee and a host of other tech companies virturally offer the same products and services. There are others that are on the tip of my tongue, but I'm having a senior moment so I'll have to get back to you to explain the rest.
Explain to me why are 21st Century physics are prohibited from converting photons into protons, neutrons, and electrons? I know I'm no physics major, but I was mainly focusing my thoughts on "light" energy, not heat energy.
Transportation and communicaton. I'm still working on an idea.
Health and education. I would focus on all aspects of preventive care, get rid of the teacher's union and dump NCLB and the rest I will have to give you later.
I gotta run! Hubby will home and I need to get some dinner ready. Talk to you later.
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 5:06pm
the choice is clear:
more bombers and guns, OR our elders get their health care paid for. ask your granny or your mom. we can obviously no longer afford both.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 5:11pm
My biggest issue that we face as a Nation are the two Wars we are currently involved in. I have been saying to people I know that we need to END these Wars and that in my opinion, it is the WAR spending that is one of the biggest reasons we are facing the economical crunch or recession we are in. I do of course have to give some credit to the Clintons deregulation of BIG Business and the sub-prime lenders as well, but the amount of money spent on our so called "National Defense" is and has been the straw thats breaking this camels back! Look at all the Billions of dollars mentioned in the article that we could save just from cutting back on Nuclear weapons! Then there are the NON Nuclear weapons we could cut and let's not forget the INSANE amount of money being spent on Private Mercenary groups like BLACKWATER. Unfortunately I don't see this Military spending coming to a halt (Unless we reach a point of Bankruptcy and have no money nor a choice but to end all the War spending). Obama has said it himself that he wants to beef up the Military Industrial Complex. Then he wants to send in a surge to Afghanistan and having Robert Gates in his administration doesn't help the cause towards a cut in military spending. Lets face it people, WAR and the Military Industrial Complex is BIG Business and BIG Money for those few at the top of the pyramid, a cut in the Military Budget is like a cut in their paychecks! The same goes with the WAR on Drugs and the Prison Industrial Complex! It basically comes down to we the people getting out there in the streets again and Marching and Demanding an END to all these Wars and the Bloated Military Industrial Complex. We basically need to collectively throw a wrench into their War Machine, or I am afraid it is NEVER going to come to an End!
Posted by kristofeR! at 12/03/2008 @ 6:42pm
I agree with you basically, kristofeR!, but as a % of GNP, our military expenditures aren't historically excessive. In fact, the Wall Street bailout will prove much more expensive at the end of the day than Iraq or Afghanistan. Clearly you don't have a clue about how wars are financed by the Federal Reserve, obviously by your naive contention "Look at all the Billions of dollars mentioned in the article that we could save just from cutting back on Nuclear weapons!"
But I assume you are also speaking morally against our two wars. That cannot be dollarized. And regardless, the cost is too high to measure. You are quite right.
Your heart's in the right place I believe. You just need to learn the truth about money and our government.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/03/2008 @ 7:18pm
KVH writes – in part:
One quick example where savings could be achieved -- the $13 billion a year missile defense program which a new Pentagon report study suggests is "plagued by mismanagement and corruption"……….
This statement could be replaced by:
(insert any government program or agency) is "plagued by mismanagement and corruption"
Solve the mismanagement and corruption and you won't have to choose between programs.
Posted by Incoming at 12/03/2008 @ 8:13pm
To Freiheit1
Thanks for the comment, although I am confused, because you say you basically agree with me but them you say I don't know what I am talking about. So that must mean that since you basically agree with someone who doesn't know what he is talking about, then you apparently don't know what you are talking about either. That said, I DO know all about our fractional reserve monetary system, I know how the Fed Res is an unnecessary middle man that is charging inflation that shouldn't be charged. I know how banks support both sides of Wars, for profit. Yes my friend I DO know. I was commenting on this article in particular which I do agree with most of what was said in the article. Now I don't know all the numbers but I am willing to take a chance and say that our Military Spending is probably some of the largest Military Spending ever. I do realize we are giving away trillions of dollars in the bailouts, but I am pretty solid in my belief that most of our problems are due in part to these two undeclared "wars on terror" the invisible enemy, fighting for an unachievable victory. We have wasted a lot of money and destroyed a lot of lives. So whether or not my numbers are dead on accurate, I think my point is more about that fact that either by pulling out or going broke we will eventually end the wars, the latter being worse all around for our own nation and the nations of our shared world. Thanks again for agreeing/disagreeing with me and visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com where you will find some videos about fractional reserve banking, the IMF and the World Banking scam.
Posted by kristofeR! at 12/03/2008 @ 8:19pm
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 5:
1. WHOSE cheap labor...ours or the Chinese?
2. It is physically impossible under any feasible technology to convert photons into matter. Again, I think you want to say "light into energy" not "matter"...and that means "solar power"...which you poo'poo'ed as "costly."
3. Get back to me on transportation and communications.
4. Despite my misgivings about its scope, cost, and efficacy...the ONE up-side to a universal health care system is ...preventative care. Which you support.
As for the teachers' union....how does getting rid of it, help education...specifically?
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 8:25pm
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 5:
Sorry...forgot one.
As far as "all those redundent companies"....that's called "competition".
One company doing all that would be a "monopoly"...which most view as bad.
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2008 @ 8:27pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/03/2008 @ 2:08pm
I agree with this post. Mask is missing that you mentioned coop markets, and you could have also included other concepts like community supported agriculture.
The bottom line is that the economy is going to have to move to a model of sustainability, and it's going to hurt like hell to make that transition. I think this is an area where tree hugging liberals and crunchy conservatives can see eye to eye.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/03/2008 @ 9:18pm
concepts like community supported agriculture.
has been feeding my family farm fresh vegetables and fruit for many, many years.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 9:29pm
Posted by Incoming at 12/03/2008 @ 8:13pm
I know it is a conservative canard that government mismanages everything. But in an age where big banks, big automakers, and any other business that can make an argument that they need to back a truck up the Treasury to make a withdrawl, I don't think you can make the argument that business does a better job.
So where does that leave you? Perhaps it is a function of "big" anything - whether government or business, and it suggests that perhaps the solution is either making things smaller or learning how to manage them better. But blaming government? That's no longer an option.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/03/2008 @ 9:40pm
KVH, you'll be in a position to kill missile defense in just about a month and grab up it's $9B/yr budget for social programs.
All you'll need to do is flip 2 moderate Republican Senators, assuming failed comic Al Franken(Stein) fails to steal the Minnesota Senate seat.
This is the first time in 16 years that you've been in this position so act swiftly and boldly.
The missile defense folks have planned a big propaganda campaign called '33 minutes' for Feb. '09 to try to stave off the killing of missile defense.
Having worked on the biggest of the missile defense programs, I can tell you my former co-workers live lives of luxury on their big, fat 'welfare-for-the-rich' salaries where they talk all day about their big screen HDTVs and their big, dual-wheel trophy trucks rather than worrying about how they are going to pay for food or pay the electric bill like the lesser fortunate do.
This is while they show no concern about the latest big schedule slip in the program which costs the government millions more.
Go kill missile defense and grab that loot.
Posted by Lucile at 12/04/2008 @ 12:31am
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/04/2008 @ 12:14am
You see, Happy - that's the dog that won't hunt. When you have private institutions coming to government for handouts because of mismanagement, you have to question the whole logic behind the inefficiency of government argument.
Your other arguments about how government supports unions contracts or micromanaging auto production are silly, so I won't bother to address them.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/04/2008 @ 12:37am
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/03/2008 @ 11:54pm
20 years ago I bought a house, partly in order to cease supporting landlords like yourself. The Section 8ers seeing what their neighbors had to go through, like paying 50% of their take home to inflate someone's lifestyle, may have just not given a tinker's damn. Of course, your justification is probably that any cash you don't receive will be spent on drugs anyway. Good luck in the coming months. My guess is that you'll soon learn to love the Section 8ers.
Posted by Sorelish at 12/04/2008 @ 01:00am
in my city it was made illegal to discriminate against section 8 tenants.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/04/2008 @ 09:11am
Huge fallacy in KVH's proposals. Money for government spending programs does not grow on trees. Must be borrowed (at positive interest rates) from firms and people here and abroad, or taxed. In either case, the money borrowed or taxed is not available for private spending and/or investment. There is a zero increase in spending and the economy will nt be juiced.
Posted by RallyGirl at 12/04/2008 @ 11:26am
Posted by RallyGirl at 12/04/2008 @ 11:26am
Government money spent works its way through the economy. Go back to your Econ 101 textbook if you forgot how this works.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/04/2008 @ 12:13pm
Who's up first in the long murmuring yet patient queue... the establishment... change... or somehow both?
The money spent is seed money for the direction we take in the future... as a country... as a planet... and may be the single most determining factor in the type and amount of change that occurs.
Military expenditures have grown exponentially... and produce
Posted by ttr at 12/04/2008 @ 1:13pm
To srjenkins: Try fourth grade arithmetic. If government borrows (or taxes) x private dollars and then spends it, the net addition to spending is zero. No additional spending has occurred. Those dollars have been displaced from the private sector and plugged into the government sector. If you want to argue that governments spend money more wisely or productively than private individuals or business firms, that is a legitimate debating point. (I think this is true where military spending is involved, feeling no great affection for private armies.) But don't conclude that government spending will juice up an economy more than private spending.
Posted by RallyGirl at 12/04/2008 @ 1:42pm
The article has 13 paragraphs. Only 3 contained mentions of the military; only 2 of them touched on military spending--in a glib, cursory, and superficial manner.
I agree that military spending must be drastically reduced. I agree with the suggestions made in the two germane paragraphs.
But that doesn't change the fact that this article WAS glib, cursory, and superficial with regard to military spending. Moreover, I don't think we're likely to see such an article in the Nation as long as KVH remains editor.
I am a life-long liberal. But I have really tired of her doctrinaire and self-righteous certitude on every issue under the sun--especially those she doesn't comprehend.
Posted by IceNine at 12/04/2008 @ 1:50pm
But don't conclude that government spending will juice up an economy more than private spending. Posted by RallyGirl at 12/04/2008 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you are missing the most salient point. there is no private spending now. that is the issue.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/04/2008 @ 1:52pm
Posted by RallyGirl at 12/04/2008 @ 1:42pm
That's the problem. Fourth grade arithmetic doesn't account for cascading effects that come from government paying people to build roads that then turn around and buy food, clothing and other items from local merchants, who then spend that money to expand their businesses and so on.
Businesses, on the other hand, tend to react to markets. They decrease spending during recessions and increase it during expansion, which exacerbates the effects in the larger economy.
Government, in recessions, basically uses economy of scale and promises of safety to act as a buffer - taking investment dollars from individuals, businesses and others that they don't want to spend because of the environment and spending it while giving them a lower rate of future returns.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/04/2008 @ 1:55pm
Two of the most important tenets of the U.S. constitution it seems to me are: (1) equal protection under the law and (2) equal application of the law. Of course, this has never been happened in U.S. history, at least simultaneously with respect to race, gender, or class. Worse, the political and economic elites have gotten away with the most extreme excesses. Obama campaigned on "changing the mindset that got us into this mess" but has quickly retreated from this dictum. He has said during the transition that his administration was going to "hit the ground running" yet few expected him to mean running away from the key aspects of his campaign. Cynics will say, of course, that all politicians do this. However, Obama promised voters he would be a different politician. So much for promises of change or integrity for that matter.
Posted by afrothetics at 12/04/2008 @ 2:03pm
1: Where in the constitution does it say anything about a "social safety net". 2: Stiglitz has no more standing than Marx who had ideas about economic too. So let's not give so much credence to these "economists" who believe the government is the best director for an economy as large as ours.
Posted by jbord at 12/04/2008 @ 2:09pm
Maybe I will never get this so forgive me but why is it that the first thing liberals point at to save money is the military. How about those dumbass pork projects that both parties indulge in or how about stopping the bailots for companies that should be allowed to fail instead of being saved. In regards to social liberals now saying the deficit doesn't affect a massive stimulas package spending spree, let us keep in mind these were the same people who were chewing out Reagan and now Bush for running a huge deficit. In the real world you can't have it both ways. Eventually the American people are going to have to understand that some people are going to suffer during this recession, that is inevitable. But the government continuing to go further and further into debt it will just make the problem worse.
Posted by McCain08 at 12/04/2008 @ 2:44pm
One of the most glaring oversights that analysts make when addressing the U.S. military budget is to look solely at the budget of Department of Defense as if this is all there is. In fact, almost every departmental budget within the federal government has been shanghaied by the militarists within Congress and the federal government in order to pursue their agenda. The purpose, of course, is to circumvent any potential public scrutiny. We know that the FBI, all budgets within the Department of State (including Agency of International Development and Peace Corps), Homeland Security, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, the Drug Czar, ATF, ad infinitum. Unfortunately, attacks on federal officials overseas sometimes means they are working deep cover within a federal agency on a goodwill mission and are not who they say they are. In short, the overall budget for the military and the intelligence agencies is at least $2 trillion, not $500 billion. Therefore, not only does the Department of Defense budget needs to be overhauled, but every other department that are supporting it will need to use its funding for transparent purposes, the most important of which is to hire up to 400,000 federal employees necessary to do the business of government and actually serve the interests of American citizens.
Posted by afrothetics at 12/04/2008 @ 2:54pm
There are serveral ways to save. If you want to save on food, try preparing simple meals in under 30 mins, take leftovers for lunch, portion out breakfast cereals according to the serving size, prepare sandwiches, use coupons often and combine them with items on sale, or you can prepare meals that freeze well or can your favorite veggies and/or fruit. Try some of these options for 30 days (and skip the takeout) and you will pleasently surprised at how much you can save.
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 4:31pm
I am pretty irritated by this post, I already do all this and more and don't need advice from someone who has probably eaten more expensive/fast/junk food in a week than I ever have in my life. How patronising can you folks get. We don't even have these options where I live, even should one want them. Bogus.
Posted by marilynm at 12/04/2008 @ 4:55pm
Someone should warn Hal9000 that if he keeps on making sense, someone is sure to report him for thoughtcrime.
Go, Hal!
Posted by Iconoblaster at 12/04/2008 @ 5:13pm
Posted by srjenkins at 12/03/2008 @ 9:40pm - in part:
I know it is a conservative canard that government mismanages everything….
Shall we trade canards?
I know it is a liberal canard that you can justify any behavior as long as you can point to any equal or worse behavior.
Posted by Incoming at 12/04/2008 @ 8:07pm
Unfortunately KVH, what you dream of will take years to put into place. The first stimulus package the gov't issued barely made a dent and now you believe they should try it again? When are you libs going to learn that throwing good money away after bad ideas never works.
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 12:38pm
LOL
Yep, sort of like the "lib" George Bush.
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/04/2008 @ 9:05pm
Posted by Incoming at 12/04/2008 @ 8:07pm
Hardly. There are typically two parts of the "government is inefficent" argument. The second part - the part people don't want to explicitly use given the current environment - is that somehow business does it better. So attacking the business part is relevant to this discussion.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/05/2008 @ 12:11am
We've done all that we can do and now it's time to let them fade away gracefully.
Posted by ACook at 12/03/2008 @ 12:38pm
AC, The plug needs to be pulled on you. What exactly has been done for working people in these bailouts? So far, banks and wallstreet have taken the federal government handouts and nothing has gone to working families.
How about reducing federal spending by slashing defense spending by 50%? It's high time the pentagon, DOD and NSA started working within a budget and not blowing money left and right.
I just talked to a friend who is an international student and was invited to dinner to be investigated by a "federal official". This official let him pick wherever he wanted to eat for the questioning. He picked the most expensive restauraunt he could find (in Canada no less) and the U.S. agent didn't even blink an eye.
So, while people lose their jobs, homes, retirements, and life savings, evidently our intelligence officials have money to blow on dinners where a different wine is served with each meal at tax payer expense. Talk about waste? Start with DOD, CIA, FBI, Pentagon, and NSA. In the name of "national defense" these money drains are killing us. We don't have to worry about terrorism undoing us, the private business sector and wallstreet have become the greatest enemy to the American working people.
By the way, someone has to work on the outside of the federal government to pay the taxes to support all of these defense institutions and all those unfortunate souls who's only way to survival is the military. If everyone is in the military....we have then truly become a socialistic society. Congratulations neocon cowards, we are on our way to becoming a military state that will be mostly socialistic in nature.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/05/2008 @ 04:28am
remember kids, Acook is a plant with the intelligence of a potted plant.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/05/2008 @ 10:01am
I no longer accept any Section 8 type tenants....not for at least 10 years now.....without exception, are were sloppy, disrespectful to property, roach-infested dirty.....
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/03/2008 @ 11:54pm
Even the evil Mr Potter in It's A Wonderful Life rented his shacks to the poor....for a profit. Nice company you're in Happy.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/05/2008 @ 10:19am
roach-infested
that is the fault and responsibility of the landlord. in my city this is a violation of the code of habitability, and the tenant can have his rent reduced because of it.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/05/2008 @ 11:13am
Have you tried the container gardening I suggested? Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/04/2008 @ 5:22pm |
Yes we do, on the small balcony we have, we grow anything you can grow in a pot, toms, basil, cukes, parsley etc., even some edible flowers as they seem to be easy to grow and make salads a bit more lively. But the scope is limited...I live in hope of getting to that garden, and maybe the taxes I pay will eventually take the burden off, by providing better infrastructure, just like in a (whispering) socialist country! And then killing two birds with one stone our life will be improved and so will some other peoples, who perhaps have less possibility, at the same time.
Posted by marilynm at 12/05/2008 @ 12:51pm
There's an article on this situation called "Economic Catch-22" that you might like: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/12/economic-catch22.html
Posted by canow at 12/05/2008 @ 6:27pm
Katrina-
Military budget is extremely important to reduce
Our broken bloated US health care system is also economically hurting mainstreet, sidestreet and wallstreet.
We need to apply the SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPT to health care
We spend far too much and,to boot,don't get quality care.
WE HAVE BEEN BOTH DUPED AND SWINDLED!
Dr. Rick Lippin Southampton,Pa
Posted by drricklippin at 12/06/2008 @ 3:17pm
In response to the well meaning people who think that gardening, caning, freezing, etc will solve poverty issues:
Of course growing fruits and veggies and baking your own bread is wonderful, but you don't seem to be aware of the situation many people find themselves in. Minimum wage jobs, even when adults in a family manage to work 2 or 3 jobs just barely cover rent and a portion of necessities. And that leaves medical expenses, clothing for the kids, etc. not to mention utilities... For such a family patronizing fast food places is a luxury they can seldom if ever engage in. Kids go hungry to school and lack medical and dental care. Most city apartments don't have balconies. Most states in the US have winters (unlike California!) and other impediment to growing stuff.
(besides serious gardening books written for subsistence farmers I read years ago stated that it takes an acre to feed a family of four --you know a cow for milk for the kids and room to grow grain, and root veggies, etc).
It's true that in some part of cities there is an ongoing effort to turn empty lots into vegetable gardens and that is great and to be lauded. But to claim that there is poverty and hunger and lack of medical care in the US because people don't grow their own vegetables and bake their own bread is reminiscent of the statement Marie Antoinette is accused of uttering when told that the people were starving because the crops had failed, and the peasants had to pay too much taxes, and so there was a lack of bread: "let them eat cake!" Yeah, let them feed their children by growing some cucumbers on a window sill in Brooklyn!
Posted by Katisumas at 12/06/2008 @ 5:34pm