If This Doesn't Make You Angry Enough, You're Willfully Allowing The Death of the Middle Class To Continue...

There's another chart or three detailing just how f-cked a majority of Americans are right now in this ongoing - yes, this ain't over kids - recession.

Here, take a look at this (via the Washington Post):

The dark blue line represents what we'd consider the Middle AND Lower Class here in the U.S.  Essentially the botton 90 percentile of families based on real average wealth (with wealth defined by income, equity, et al).  Starting off at the post-WWII spot of 1945, you'll see the three tiers of income - Bottom 90, Top 10, Top 1 Percent - all going upward during the 1950s and even improving for the Bottom 90 in the late 1980s and 1990s (when Reagan's income tax reforms kicked in, property values went up, new technology jobs started).

Up until about 2005-06, near about the start of the Great Recession that we're still in.

Everybody dropped.  Every market got hit - stock market, commodities, property market - and there was a massive downturn.  It looks like the downturn took a two-year, three-year dive before flattening out for the three years following... except for the 1 Percenter track.  Where the Bottom 90 AND the Top 10 Percenters flattened, the 1 Percenters went up, and went up sharp.

What the hell happened there?  Referring to that Washington Post article:

...The problem was that middle class doesn't own that much in stocks, but went into debt to buy lots of housing. So the housing crash turned their biggest financial asset into an albatross, wiping out their equity but not their debt. And the housing recovery hasn't done much to fix this, since it's struggled to move beyond the "nascent" stage.

Stocks, meanwhile, collapsed during the crisis, but came back soon thereafter. The middle class, in other words, missed out on the big bull market in stocks, but not on the even bigger bear one in housing. That's why the recovery has restored so little of the wealth that the recession destroyed. In fact, the bottom 90 percent have actually kept losing net worth the past few years, in large part, due to rising student loan debt...

Not all recoveries were made equal: the stock market flourished, the investment population flourished, the rest of us got screwed with debt up to our ears.

One thing I keep seeing from the hate-the-poor tweeters and Facebook posters on the Intertubes is how it's the poor people's fault they don't invest in the obviously-successful, will-always-go-up stock markets.  I keep replying when I can to let them know that not everyone can play the market: even a MENSA member like me can't make heads or tails of stock profiles and investment surveys.  Every poor person simply can't afford to pay into stock ownership, no matter how smart they are, because stocks themselves get expensive.  And most middle-class Americans didn't have much free money on hand to dabble either.  If the middle class invested in anything, it was in something tangible and focused: their homes, and they left the stock market stuff to their pension plans and 401(k)s.  For the 1980s and 1990s, the system worked after all: property values increased, and most Americans thought themselves well-off regardless of how much wealth they really controlled.

Which leads to the second chart from that Post article:

The Bottom 90 Percenters - 90 percent of ALL Americans - saw their percentage of the nation's overall wealth drop from over a 1/3 (37 percent) of everything down to less than a 1/4 (23 percent) of everything.  We never really had all that much, but we had enough to spread around and feel secure.  Now 90 percent of us aren't getting as much of the pie as we used to get.

Meanwhile, look at the Top 10 Percenters.  Sure, the 10-to-1 Percenters dropped as well, but not as sharp as the Bottom 90.  And the Top 10-to-1 holds 35 percent of the share.  Add that to the Top 1-to-.1 Percenters who hold 20 percent, and add again to the .1-to-.01 Percent (the REALLY rich) also 11-12 percent and then add the .01 Percenters themselves (the UBER rich) at 11 percent share and you've got 77 PERCENT of total wealth held by the Top 10 Percenters.  The Top .1 Percenters at roughly 42 percent - nearly double of 90 PERCENT OF ALL AMERICANS - of all total wealth.

We haven't seen income disparity like this since the days of the Great Depression, when the poor were REALLY poor and the rich were REALLY rich.

And this recession - where wages for the middle classes and the poor have stagnated for years, even more than a decade by now - isn't over yet.  Debt for lower-income families- for even what we'd still consider the middle class - remains crushing and getting worse.  We've taken some of the debt woes from healthcare finances out of the equation but not by much, and we're looking at increased debt woes from higher education costs.  Piling on-top of that is the fact our housing industry hasn't improved and the foreclosure problems - with banks still bad-faith actors - remain a threat.

So what if anything are we doing as a nation about the massive personal debts - mortgages, college costs, other costs - we have threatening what's left of our middle class?

Nothing.  Not a goddamn thing.

Angry yet?

Read more ...

Anniversary: It's Been Five Years...

...and four of them a long long struggle to recover, but still...

Yeah, back on Dec. 17 2008 I lost my employment with Pasco County Libraries.

Between then and now was a long struggle: filing for unemployment, filing for WIA re-training funds, taking more computer classes, job-hunting, tweaking resumes, job-hunting, not getting interviewed, never getting interviewed, not even getting looked at by the retailers for part-time (the sins of getting a Masters degree education, you make yourself overqualified for a sh-tload of part-time jobs) work...

It was hard as hell on my family, especially my parents who helped out financially as best they could, and they couldn't understand why no one would even interview me for office work or anything like that.  My twin brother once chewed me out (on our birthday no less), accusing me of being a lazy-ass living off our parents' largess.  They couldn't understand I was up against 60, 100, 150 (!) applicants for every job opening (it wasn't just the unemployed I was competing with, it was employed people looking for something stable during uncertain times), and that I was going up against HR departments being finicky with who they interviewed (younger and cheaper were better, less educated and less prone to look elsewhere were better, etc.).

I found a part-time job in 2009, but it was will-call... By 2010 I put in for the Census work, but that turned out to be shorter than I expected... 2011, nothing, not a peep.  Things picked up by 2012 with 5 different libraries and computer-oriented workplaces interviewing, but I ended up not making the cut...  I finally got a part-time with a tech firm doing contractual installs for offices, but that was will-call as well... by Christmas 2012 Dad threatened and began plans to ship me up to my older brother's in Maryland (WINTER?!) to look for work in what he felt was a better employment environment.

Thank God this January I had three libraries interview me one right after the other... with Bartow, GOD BLESS THEM, offering me a job as their Reference and Computer training librarian.

I'd like to think I'm doing well here, that I'm fitting in (truth be told, my struggles losing a job and then trying to find one has left me with a bad case of "Oh GOD Don't Let Me Eff Up" that's got me more jumpy about how I'm doing than usual).

But in the meantime, while I've gotten out of unemployment purgatory, there's still Seven percent of Americans (and that's just the official numbers, the real numbers are far worse) stuck in unemployment, with clear evidence that the long-term unemployed (those out of work for more than six months) are really screwed by HR offices and companies who won't take in experienced older workers or anyone viewed as a hire risk.

We need a Jobs bill in this country.  We need to force companies to turn their record profits into more jobs or at least better wages for existing employees.  We need to make the economy based on employment, not stock options.

To everyone out there still looking for work, I hope and pray the best for you.  If you need help looking, check at your libraries for job-hunting help and resume tips.  Stay active in politics to vote the right people - the ones pushing for REAL JOBS, not tax cuts for companies already rolling in profits - into office at the state and federal level.  Hell, GO to the local political (okay, go Democrat, because I honestly think the Republicans would ignore this issue or defame it) offices and sign up to run for state office on a Jobs-Jobs-Jobs platform.  The more candidates we've got out there pushing for real job creation, the better our chances.

Good luck.  Here's hoping your anniversaries for firing fade quick and for hiring come quick.

Read more ...

Presidential Character: Week Thirty-Two, The Two Faces of an Active-Positive Part One

Considering the length of this next President's tenure, and the fact that during his administration our nation was literally in two worlds - the first a massive economic crisis, the second a global war - I've decided to divide this one's entry into two articles.  Hopefully I'll be able to explain why...

My fading memories of AP American History remind me that one of the essay questions used was "Herbert Hoover was a liberal and Franklin D. Roosevelt a conservative, discuss."  In fact, a quick Google search showed me the question is still in use today.  I pity you high-schoolers.

The arguments made were that in practice Hoover the established pro-business Republican had done things considered "liberal" - increased taxes, expanded government - while Roosevelt the radical try-anything Democrat had done things "conservative" - cut taxes, gave business more free range.

The problem with that argument is sticking to the belief that "liberal" and "conservative" are static constructs.  The argument simplified what Hoover and FDR did on their own terms and under the legal and cultural restrictions of the day.  For one thing, a conservative (as politics usually define one) would never had unleashed the 1,001 different agendas that Roosevelt did throughout the New Deal era.  A liberal (as usually defined) would not have viewed government as limited in its authority which kept Hoover from fully resolving the crisis.

This is where viewing the Presidential Character as either Active-Passive and Positive-Negative makes more sense.  An Active-Positive like FDR would have cut taxes if the circumstances called for it, would have allowed more free trade if it made the economy work, would have done things that a modern-era Republican think paradoxically "Reagan did it first".  It's neither truly liberal or truly conservative.  It's Adaptive: the key trait of the A-P President.

FDR came into office at one of the greatest crises in American history.  The Great Depression had become a perfect storm of failing banks, mass unemployment, and financial ineptitude on a scale that would have - and did in Europe - collapsed powerful nations since the days of olde.  The economic collapse had led to regime changes in Italy and Germany, allowing the rise of fascism as a political alternative to the democratic republicanism seemingly failing in the West.  Soviet communism had taken root in Russia and was under the control of one of history's most brutal dictators.  A lot was at stake with FDR's administration: failure didn't mean a One-Term Presidency, it most likely meant a mass riot and the fall of the federal government to one extreme or the other.  And Roosevelt knew it.

Roosevelt brought with him a team of advisors and Cabinet officials that represented the broad spectrum of the political ideology: some were noted die-hard conservatives, some were hard-case liberals one step removed from communism.  Ideology didn't mean much to FDR outside of results: get the economy working again.  He famously said during his 1932 campaign that the thing to do during the crisis was "to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." 

And his administration proved it: a greater number of bills presented to Congress over the first 100 days (the first time an administration measured its efforts by that metric) than had been presented by any previous administration.  Relief projects begun under Hoover supported with greater funding and urgency.  New regulations put in place - like Glass-Steagall - to stop the questionable and chaotic financial speculation that had led to financial collapse.  And the first of several government-backed employment programs under the Civilian Conservation Corps, which employed 250,000 young men to farms and conservation projects.

He did all this under withering criticism: from the Republican conservatives who questioned the budget deficits FDR was piling up and the constitutionality of much of the New Deal policies, and from the Far Left who questioned whether Roosevelt was doing enough in sharing the wealth and fixing everything in one broad stroke.  Both extremes noted that for all of the New Deal activity, the economy only barely improved by the end of Roosevelt's first term: Unemployment in particular was still in the double digits (14 percent) barely half of its 1933 high (24 percent).

FDR openly welcomed the hatred, especially from the rich elite that declared Roosevelt "a traitor to his class."  He plowed ahead on his New Deal, adding more projects and trying anything.  And some metrics of the economy were improving - Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was finally going upward after 1933 when during the 1929-32 period it had dropped - along with the nation's mood, well enough that when the 1936 Presidential campaign rolled around FDR won re-election in one of the biggest butt stompings in electoral history.

Professor Barber in his text notes why he uses Franklin D. as his model of the Active-Positive:

Roosevelt exhibited... what I see as a major contrast between the Active-Positive type in politics and other types... (they) are freer in their selections from a stylistic repertoire... (they) show how much richer and more varied range of emotional orientations is available to the politician whose character is firmly rooted in self-recognition and self-love.  The Active-Positive not only can perform lovingly or aggressively or with detachment, he can feel those ways.  As Roosevelt's case points out, the genuineness of those feelings can come across powerfully to close associations and to the public at large. (p. 295-6)

The empathy adds to the ability of being Adaptive.  Knowing what the situation is at one moment requires a response.  Realizing the situation can or has changed requires turning that response in a different direction, sometimes in a direction your supporters never saw on the horizon.  While other politicians can "flip-flop" on an issue for cynical reasons, the A-P personality has the confidence to express why the change was made and point out the empathetic reasons for doing so.  Above all is that Confidence: not the stolid "I Must" of an Active-Negative that Barber noted with Hoover, but the reckless "I Can".

But this shows one of the dangers - the second face - of the Active-Positive.  The danger of Overreach.  The "I Can Do This" in the most reckless of moments can be devastating to an A-P President.  Lincoln had that "I Can" feeling with his Emancipation Proclamation, a questionable edict that on the eve of the Civil War's end meant chaos unless the 13th Amendment could get passed.  Jefferson's "I Can" came not with the Louisiana Purchase but with the self-imposed trade embargoes as a response to the Napoleonic wars.

FDR's came with the Court Packing scheme.  Genuinely frustrated with a conservative Supreme Court that struck down some of the more impactful New Deal bills, Roosevelt figured at the start of his second term to use his political capital on a plan to give the President the power to add an extra SCOTUS Justice for every sitting Justice over the age of 70 (in 1937 that meant six new seats).

People outside and within Roosevelt's own administration freaked.  Some of the arguments FDR used in favor of the plan didn't make sense - one of Roosevelt's strongest supporters on the bench at the time was 80 years old for example, meaning age couldn't have been an issue - and the bill quickly got recognized even by New Deal advocates as a serious Executive branch threat to Judicial sovereignty.  Roosevelt may have had confidence in presenting the plan, but for once that famed A-P empathy failed to read the public mood.  Time, the unexpected loss of the legislative proponent to present the bill to Congress, and the changeover of the Supreme Court membership saved FDR the embarrassment of having the Court Packing bill reach a chamber floor and burn up in flames, but it quickly became the biggest failure of FDR's New Deal era.

FDR's two faces - the confident Adaptive leader, the Overreaching politico - would be combined into one  big reason why Roosevelt would eschew the tradition of letting go after two terms of office.  By 1940, there were problems on the national and international level that would stir the interest and challenge of any Active-Positive leader: the Second World War.

And that's where I'll leave off for Part Two. (link to be added later)

Next Up: What Did I Just Tell You?!  PART TWO DAMMIT.

Read more ...

Income Inequality

This is something that has been posted a few months back but only now is circulating the blogosphere:

The problem of income inequality in the United States has been with us for a long time: for at least the last ten years (if not the last thirty or more) wages have been frozen for most American workers, while the top one percent of the employment bracket (the CEO level) continued getting raises and bonuses and comp packages and Golden Parachutes (even when those CEOs were screwing up their companies: SEE the Twinkies company going down in flames while the executives paid themselves off).

Just to note: it used to be as recent as 1978 that executive (CEO) pay was only 35 times that of the average employee.  Today it's roughly 380 times, partly because average employee wages haven't grown but mostly because executives have been paying themselves (via friendly boards or manipulated systems) more and more without consequence (politicians are bought, media are bought, unions are crushed).

The argument for high wages for high-level jobs (like CEO, or high-priced attorney, or esteemed doctor) is that it motivates people to work and empower themselves to achieve great things: the carrot rather than the stick as it were.  While that is a valid argument, there's a question of "how much is really enough?"  At what point does GREED become too much of a motivating factor rather than equitable compensation for good effort?  Where's the sense of proportion when it comes to taking a $5 million bonus while 2,000 other employees of your company gets a wooden nickel each for working as hard or even harder than that CEO?

There ought to be a way to fix this in a fair and equitable manner.  I'd argue for a wage cap on CEOs tied to their employees: that CEOs of large companies be paid no more than 35 times (like in 1978) than their average non-administrative employees.  Said cap to be phased into action over a five-year period, dropping from 380 times to 150 times in Year One, to 98 times in Year Two, all the way down to that 35 times by Year Five.  In the meantime, require that the average wage of those non-admin employees to go up, as a way of making that "35 times more" deal for the upper management less painful (so that it would make the CEOs more like 50 times paid more if those employees hadn't gotten raises).

The math might not be there, I know.  But somehow we've got to raise the wages for a majority of working Americans out there.  And we've got to make CEOs less greedy (based on that video's report, that One Percent of the populus has got 40 PERCENT of the nation's money.  THE F-CK?!)

This isn't communism (something for nothing).  It might be socialism: forcing the richest to take less so that the poor can get more.  Except for the fact we're talking about improving the wages of poor WORKING Americans, not some "handouts" to a nebulous "moochers and takers" society.  But what's the alternative?  Doing nothing, sitting back and basking in the "It's all Capitalism baby learn to love it" belief system is not the solution... The current system is broken: there's no judge, no force of accountability against the GREED that's corrupted our financial institutions.

Seriously, what is the alternative to capping CEO wages?

Read more ...

The Difference Between a Recession and a Depression

The truism is that when your neighbors lose their jobs, it's a recession: when YOU lose your job, it's a depression.

The last 5 years, however, has kind of skewed that joke.  Which really isn't all that funny when you consider the hell you and your neighbors are going through trying to find solid work.

The normal turn-around on losing a job and finding a new one tended to be less than six months (if you couldn't find anything in six months you were looking in the wrong places).  This prolonged economic downturn, however, saw a turn-around rate averaging a year, maybe more.  I personally knew of fellow unemployed who were struggling to find even part-time employ (no benefits, not enough income) for more than a year.

I personally struggled to find full-time employment for more than 4 years.  Part-time work came and went and was hard to find (and keep): for all of 2011 I had no employment at all.  And I was putting in for five to ten jobs a week.  The simple reason was that there were few jobs being created in the first place... with each new opening getting swarmed with 60 to 150 applicants within two days of the posting.  I once handed my resume to an HR person speaking at the Career Center for a position that my research background fit to a tee that the HR person mentioned just opened the day before... only to have her tell me she'd already gotten 75 applicants for that spot.

So, from where I was sitting - where my family was coping along with me, doing what they could to help out, and all the burdens they've had to bear - this Great Recession felt like a Depression.

This is a very long-winded setup for the good news.  I finally found a full-time job.  They really liked my resume: they really liked me.  I'll be doing what I like: helping people find books and research materials and getting into computer usage.

I would joke - and I have, elsewhere - that our long national nightmare... is over.  Except, well, it's not over.

We're still a nation mired in a jobless economic recovery.  Unemployment may be hovering around 7.9 percent (official number: the unofficial unemployment numbers are always a lot worse... and always more accurate) which is better than the 10 percent and worse that it had been at the deepest part of the 2009 valley, but that's not normal.  Unemployment should ever be around 4 percent for the economy to be chugging along just fine: an unemployment rate of 2 percent is a strong economy.

We need more action from government to spur businesses to use their profits to grow and hire on more people.  We need to stop the wave of cutbacks in the public sector which is hurting that job sector: if our states, counties, and federal government weren't cutting back on their workforce, the unemployment rate would be a full percent less than it is now.  We need a jobs bill.

Meantime, to all my fellow job-seekers.  I may be employed but I stand with you.  Good luck finding work.  Really good luck to you all.

Read more ...

Current Political Mood

I'm just not inclined to think much about politics these days.

Even with the sudden uptick in the Occupy Wall Street news - and the Far Right blowback to something that can successfully counter their Teabagger movement - for some reason I'm neither thrilled nor contemplative.

There's still a lot of protesting and military action going on in the Middle East for example.  Meh.

There's the economic meltdown in Europe still happening in slow motion.  Meh.

There's the anti-voting BS the Republicans are attempting at the state level to suppress minorities, the poor, and college-age voters.  Meh.

Just not feeling connected to the world at the moment, that's all.

Too much outrage burn-out?  Too much stress coping with unemployment?  Dunno...

Read more ...

What I Want To Hear From Obama On His Jobs Speech

Obama is set to appear tonight before a Joint Session of Congress to present a plan for doing something about the horrendous unemployment numbers that are miring our economy in the most prolonged recession this nation's ever seen (it's getting into Depression-type numbers, which is never good).

These are some of the things I'd like to hear Obama say:

"There is growing evidence that businesses and corporations are intentionally overlooking the long-term unemployed.  They are refusing to hire anyone who's been out of work longer than six months.  Even if that unemployed candidate has years of relevant experience.  This is wrong.  This is unacceptable.  It is prolonging our nation's economic woes by creating and expanding our unemployed population and putting more of a burden on our nation's social safety net already facing tight budget restrictions.  This is creating a self-fulfilling belief that the long-term unemployed are unemployable because, well, you're keeping them that way.  We need to look at this as discriminatory hiring practices, and we need to enforce hiring laws to tell corporations they need to hire more people who have been out of work for longer than six months, for longer than a year, for longer than two years.  Hire the long-term unemployed first before even thinking about hiring people who already have a job.  If we catch you hiring people who already have employment over people who've been begging and praying for work for years, we will fine your sorry corporate HR asses so much you'd think filing for bankruptcy will be cheaper."

"The vast long-term unemployed WANT to work.  They want to make something of their lives.  They want to earn a paycheck so they can feed their own families and pay for that roof over their heads.  There's not a one of them who prefers sitting at home doing nothing and earning unemployment benefits that barely covers the cost of weekly groceries or rent.  If any of you politicians even THINK of accusing the long-term unemployed as drug abusers or welfare queens, I will personally escort you to your district's or state's unemployment offices and have you sit there for six months so you can see how hard-pressed and desperate the unemployed REALLY ARE to find any work."

"That said.  FUCK YOU JIM DEMINT.  FUCK YOU AND YOUR BULLSHIT FANTASIES ABOUT THE UNEMPLOYED BEING LAZY."  (NOTE: Yes, I want Obama to say this.  After the Joe Wilson "You Lie" crap, why pretend civility is a part of Congress anymore?)

"There is no evidence that cutting taxes creates jobs.  There is no evidence that cutting regulations creates jobs.  What we do know is that cutting taxes INCREASES the federal deficits to unsustainable levels.  What we do know is that cutting regulations or ignoring regulations to make profits leads to increased pollution, unsafe work areas, and people dying.  So to my Republicans opponents: STOP SHILLING TAX CUTS AND DEREGULATION AS JOB-CREATORS.  You're selling snake oil, you fuckers."

"What we need in this country is another WPA.  We need to get construction jobs up and running.  We need to repair bridges and roads that haven't been fixed or upgraded in 40 years.  We need to repair and upgrade nuclear reactors that are 20 years past their expiration date, and yes while nuclear reactors carry enormous risk our energy needs rely on them right now, so we need to upgrade them to newer safer models than the old-style reactors from 40 years ago that aren't as safe against earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and other natural disasters.  We need to replace schools older than 20 years, make them compatible with today's technologies, so we can start teaching our children on the tools of today and tomorrow.  We need to get people working: for every one person who was hired back during the WPA of the 1930s, that job created two other jobs in response."

"All we need is a construction-jobs program that hires people across this nation.  The WPA of the 1930s hired 8 million people.  We don't need to go that big.  We can hire 4 million people, and if one WPA job creates two more that can translate up to 12 million Americans getting jobs, cutting more than half of our unemployment numbers right there.  IT WORKED BEFORE AND IT CAN WORK AGAIN."

"And we can pay for this new WPA.  We can look at our budgets and make the adjustments needed to make budget room for this jobs program.  We can eliminate some of the tax credits on billionaires that won't hurt their wallets but will pay back into this jobs programs FOR ALL AMERICANS to benefit.  IT WORKED BEFORE AND IT CAN WORK AGAIN."

"Our nation's economy is struggling.  We can't ignore that.  One of the two reasons our economy is struggling is because we lack the jobs to hire the unemployed.  We can solve that with a jobs bill.  But we can't ignore the other reason our economy is struggling, and that is the household debt our citizens are fighting.  And the largest form of household debt are mortgages.  Too many families are struggling at too-low incomes paying off mortgages on houses whose values have gone underwater.  Our housing industry is facing another series of destructive foreclosures and abandoned properties.  Each foreclosure lowers the property values of everyone else's homes surrounding them.  This is making it hard for people to sell their homes if they have to move to new jobs.  This is making it hard for people to pay off their mortgages, period.  And this is shuffling their debts from one thing to another like their overdrawn credit cards or unpaid college loans.  Above all, paying off all this debt is making it impossible for our citizens to pay for anything else like products and services that would boost our consumer-driven economy.  We need to look into resolving some of these debt issues.  Instead of bailing out banks, bail out the mortgage holders.  Help them pay off their mortgages to where their homes are no longer underwater.  Help pay off their mortgages so none of them fall into foreclosure.  By helping them, we free up the banks overwhelmed with foreclosures to begin making safe loans that can stabilize our housing market."

"And again, I cannot stress this enough, FUCK YOU JIM DEMINT.  FUCK YOU SIDEWAYS WITH A CHAINSAW."

"Thank you, God Bless to all the families across our nation, God Bless the United States of America."

Read more ...

Things I Want To Hear From Obama During This Afternoon's Speech

I originally posted this at Ta-Nehisi's house.  Hope he doesn't mind.

"If we want to be serious about reducing the deficits and reducing our debt, we NEED to look at how our government gets its revenues."

"We need to raise the taxes on those who can afford it: the millionaires and billionaires who still profited during these last three years of hardship while the middle class struggled to stay out of poverty. Not to raise such taxes as a putative measure, but to ensure that every American is paying their fair share into fixing our financial problems."

"We need to begin closing tax loopholes for corporations. Especially any tax loophole that benefits too few companies at the expense of the nation. And especially any loophole that does not hamper or prevent corporations from generating honest profit."

"Also, you all should really buy a copy of Paul Wartenberg's ebook. He needs the moneys. And some of the stories in that collection are pretty funny. Word."

"Also, I strongly suggest that every American hugs a puppy or kitten today. If you're allergic, perhaps a Pokemon action figure."

"One last thing. I wasn't born in Hawaii. I was born on the planet Krypton, sent here by my true father Marlon Brando to... wait, I already did this joke, didn't I?"

To dream the impossible dream...

Read more ...

Burning Down The Housing Industry

For awhile there, I was thinking about making some comments on the horrifying story about how privatizing the fire departments might not be that good an idea.

But this week, something bigger and nastier that can affect everyone's homes has popped up in the news:

...But oddly, when it's revealed that financial institutions have behaved irresponsibly (and in some cases criminally) casting their own industry into disrepute, ruining countless lives and (further) destroying the economy, we are told that they cannot be held responsible, or even be required to stop their irresponsible and criminal behavior, because it will slow the recovery and the poor average worker will be hurt. We've been told for two years now, as wave after wave of financial wrongdoing and malfeasance has been revealed, that it is in our best interest and the best interest of the country that we allow the big banks and their various affiliates to continue on unmolested lest something even worse happens...

...You have to love the idea that average Americans should stand pat while the mortgage industry continues to defraud them so they can protect their alleged investments in mortgage securities. I guess there's a sucker born every minute.

At some point one would hope that this racket would become obvious to the American people: they are being held hostage by financial elites who insist that they be allowed to get away with murder or they'll blow the whole place up and take everyone down with them...

It seems that over the past two years, the banks had been speeding through the foreclosure paperwork for hundreds of thousands of properties that there has been mass confusion over which properties belong to whom, and even if certain mortgaged homes are even foreclosed.  There are reports of people's homes being auctioned off by banks while those same banks are telling the homeowners that they still own their properties.  Reports of fraudulent signatures and false papers are rampant.  Attorneys General of 40 states are starting investigations and the banks have had to freeze their entire foreclosure processes.

As someone who's unemployed, struggling with the help of his parents to pay off a mortgage while I search for work, the possibility that I may have to sell my townhouse/condo is a primary concern.  Problem is, I can't sell in this housing market from Hell.  And this foreclosure crisis is making it worse.  Freezing the foreclosures makes the market more uncertain.  The whole mortgage lending process may be under investigation before too long.  And in this environment people are not going to be interested in buying homes.

It'd be nice to think that someone can come along and fix this all: establish some serious oversight, ensure that the paperwork has been resolved, provide stability to the home-selling and mortgage-lending markets.  But the banks can't be trusted.  The government is tied up right now with partisan bullshit by a Republican Party obsessed with deregulating everything and demonizing any effort to fix our economy (unless it involved cutting more taxes... again... and again.  AND FUCKING AGAIN).

The Latin phrase for "We're screwed"?  Anyone?  The Google Translate isn't all that effective...

Read more ...

The Republicans' New Contract On America

I thought about titling this blog entry "The GOP Lemon Pledge" but dammit I think Olbermann beat me to it.

(Mixing the "Pledge to America" with the "Lemon Pledge" furniture cleaner, with the underlying pun of "Lemon" being a poorly-patched product for sale that no sane customer should ever buy.  Okay, now that's been explained...)

The recently-released "Pledge to America" by the current Republican congressional leadership is, of course, an attempt to re-capture the success of the 1994 "Contract With America."   The Contract was viewed at its release as a gimmick (The Left still considers Newt Gingrich's ploy the "Contract ON America"): however, it galvanized the GOP base and gave their congressional candidates a platform to run on.  As such, when the Republicans were victorious that midterm - winning control of both House and Senate for the first time since the early 1950s - the Contract was cited as the key to victory.

Even though half of that Contract never saw the light of day under Newt's years as House Speaker.

So... what of the Pledge?

The current Republican leadership is thinking the Pledge can replicate the earlier success.  However, there are severe problems with that Pledge:

• It wants to extend ALL the tax cuts created under George W. Bush back in 2001-2003 to permanent status (those cuts are set to expire this January anyway).  The problem: nearly every chart graphing the massive government deficit we're living with shows that most of that deficit is caused simply by those tax cuts.  Keeping those cuts intact would simply make the deficits WORSE.
• It wants to hold all unspent funds from the TARP stimulus package.  The problem: most of those funds have been spent out, making this an empty gesture.  Whatever IS left in the stim package could affect the states' collective budgets crises: blocking that could force local governments into drastic and destructive actions...
• It wants to place a spending freeze on all domestic spending, except anything that would affect seniors such as Social Security and Medicare.  And also, no spending freeze on our defense budget.  The problem: The biggest spending portions of our annual federal budgets ARE the Defense, the Social Security and the Medicare, meaning this won't do anything about the biggest parts of the federal bureaucracy in the first place!  And the stuff that will get affected?  Item one: the Unemployment benefit extensions.  Item two: social programs.  Item three: pretty much everything the federal (and even states) budget provides to keep the majority of this nation out of poverty, hunger, and despair.
• It wants to repeal the 2010 Health Care Reform bill.  The problem: The Pledge - and the GOP itself - offers no alternative to the Reform bill that would resolve the ever-growing and ever-threatening health care costs that can kill our economy within the next 10 years... if not sooner.
• It wants to place a permanent ban on federally-funded abortions.  The problem: most Americans actually don't even consider Abortion a Top-10 Problem anymore.  If the Republicans push this, they might run into the problem that a majority of Americans may not like abortion as a practice but they want the choice of it, meaning that the GOP can and will lose even more voters in the long term.
• It wants to place a requirement for all congressional bills to be posted online for review during a three-day period before voting.  The problem: This is the only sane thing in the bill.  The problem is that this feels like a gimmick the Republicans will easily overlook the second they seize control of the House and/or Senate this midterm.
• It wants to make it a requirement for legislation being voted on to cite the specific constitutionality that allows the bill to be voted on in the first place.  The problem: The Republicans want to have evidence of which parts of the Constitution - the Commerce Clause, the 14th Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 8th, the 9th, etc - they will later want removed.
• It wants to spend millions on a missile defense system.  The problem: This is a hangover from the Cold War when we were planning to fight the likes of Soviet Russia and Red China.  Guess what?  WAR'S OVER!  Yay Capitalism!  The odds of Russia or China launching against us are remote to the point of laughable: China's not about to start a war (too much internal security issues) and Russia can't afford one.  The next closest threat to American soil - North Korea - can barely reach Alaska for any target, and they don't have enough arsenal or political backing to do anything so foolish (if North Korea DOES try to launch nukes on anybody like Japan for example, the international condemnation would be so overwhelming it would make the coalition into Afghanistan look like a autumn bake-off).  Our national threats are no longer missile launchers by air but mad bombers on the ground. We don't NEED a missile defense system anymore!  Especially one that's been proven over the years to be a massive boondoggle run by the Defense industry.
• It wants to place a hiring freeze on federal jobs not pertaining to National Security.  The problem: WE'RE IN A RECESSION YOU GOP ASSHOLES.  A recession defined completely by the largest, and longest, unemployment crisis this nation has had since 1933!  And the Federal government (www.usajobs.gov) is pretty much the ONLY institution in this jobless economy THAT'S CONSISTENTLY HIRING!  The banks aren't helping with business loans!  The private sector shows no sign of massive upticks in hiring people!  And you REPUBLICAN BASTARDS WANT TO BLOCK US UNEMPLOYED FROM GETTING ANY JOBS WITH THE GOVERNMENT?!  Dear God, if you ever deign to send me a Messenger, can you PLEASE assure me that 99.99 percent of all unemployed people are aware that the Republicans are trying to destroy us?  And that those 99.99 percent of the unemployed are registered voters who are going to vote ANYBODY BUT REPUBLICAN?  grrrrrr.

The Contract WITH America was relatively tame compared to this crap.  The Pledge is literally THE Contract ON America.  Broken down into its three basic components, the Pledge wants to extend tax cuts, curtail federal spending (that won't piss off the hawks and the elderly voters that make up the GOP base), and basically rewrite the first two years of Obama's administration.  In the particulars however lie the devil's details.  The Republicans' obsession with tax cuts will do just one thing: enlarge an already massive deficit.  Lemme add that chart showing the current deficit projections (from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities):

Everyone should look at this chart.  The big clay-brown color in the middle of the chart?  That's the deficit created by Dubya's tax cuts.  Just by themselves.  I've lived through two massive tax cuts programs: Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and Bush the Lesser's 2001-2003 tax cuts.  Both times, we were promised that A) the tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating more taxable revenue (repeat after me, wha?), B) the tax cuts would create jobs (both tax cuts were followed by massive unemployment: job creation under both Reagan and Dubya were weak compared to other administrations) and C) it would force government to cut wasteful spending (Reagan included massive military spending during his term; Dubya mismanaged two wars and signed off on GOP budgets especially a big Pharma buyout that made LBJ look like a penny-pincher).  Both times, I witnessed only one thing: MASSIVE DEFICITS.  Tax Cuts CREATE Deficits.  That's ALL they do.  That's ALL we need to know.

And yet, this Pledge by the current Republican leadership seems to continue this fantasy-based belief that Tax Cuts Can Solve All Ills.  Even AGAINST tons of evidence to the contrary (even in opposition to other governments like Great Britain, where they are facing their deficit issues with a strict program of spending cuts AND tax hikes: and that's a CONSERVATIVE-led coalition over there).

My supervisor back at my last employ kept telling me "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."  The Republican party leadership is obsessed with the idea that tax cuts will work and that their plans on Social Security (kill it) and Unemployment Benefits (kill it) and Government regulatory oversight (kill everyone in mines, on oil rigs, and eating poisoned eggs) and Defense Spending (kill the rest) will create their heavenly laissez-faire utopia.  And yet each time these tax cuts don't create the Promised Results, the Republicans act all surprised and then blame it on those damn libruls who are stopping them from committing EVEN BIGGER tax cuts.  Each time a Democrat gets elected into the White House the last 20 years - first with Clinton, now with Obama - the Republicans amp up the Fear that ZOMG Commie-Hippie-Controlled Evildoer Democrats are gonna destroy this country and that we need to return the Republicans back to power so they can continue The Grand Reagan Revolution That Will Save Us All (Except for, you know, the Poor and Middle Class and Ethnic Minorities and Women Who Will ALL Be Shit Out Of Luck).

I'd said it before here and elsewhere: Utopias are flawed because their creators keep ignoring complex human conditions.  The Republican Utopia of their 100-Year Era of Reagan is flawed because tax cuts alone do not create jobs (investment in business growth does).  It is flawed because Social Security and Medicare are not massive government boondoggles (privatizing either one would actually RAISE costs of each service: and tying Social Security into risky investments like the stock markets would have literally destroyed millions whenever those markets can (and do) collapse).  It is flawed because THEY, like nearly every other human that ever lived (well, except for that one guy) are flawed.  And they won't admit it.

If we're lucky, this Pledge will backfire: already it's proving to be more gristle for the Democrats' campaigning efforts than impressing the more vocal tea-bagger crowds.

But this is a crazy midterm election, and I still can't understand why enough of my fellow voters across this nation are even giving the crazed Republican party a serious look (yes, the Democrats may be cowards, and they may be incapable of aggressive campaigning, but for the love of God they're not the ones stymieing government it's those damn Republicans!).  If the Republicans do win, there is every conceivable chance they will take this Pledge seriously.

And that would be the WORST thing the Republicans could do.

Read more ...

OT: just ordered new business cards

Wanted to add the CompTIA (r) A+ Certified logo, also to update to the new email address to be more... professional.

Now... HIRE ME!

Read more ...

At what point will the Middle Class wake up and realize the Rich are killing them?

Via Balloon-Juice, an article posted on Yahoo! Finance by Michael Snyder:

...The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.
So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.
Here are the statistics to prove it:
•    83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
•    61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
•    66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
•    36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
•    A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
•    24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
•    Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
•    Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
•    For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
•    In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
•    As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
•    The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
•    Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
•    In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector (NOTE: this tells me the private sector is worth dick when it comes to solving our nation's employment crisis).
•    The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
•    In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks (NOTE: I'm way over average at 82... maybe 85 weeks).
•    More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
•    For the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
•    This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
•    Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
•    Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
•    The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.


...The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker 10 times more (plus benefits) to do the same job?...
...So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about six unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.
Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.  But you can't raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald's or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart.
The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild.

Snyder only points out half the problem: that middle-class quality American jobs are leaving and never coming back.  The other half of the problem is the income inequality: barely 1 to 5 percent of the entire American population is seeing any wage improvements and boost to standards of living, with the lower 95 percent (!) of the population stuck in a growing pool of debt and inability to pay for the good things in life... good things like a family home, food on the table, a car with working headlights and only one flat tire, you know those sort of things.  And that is caused by the fact there are no caps on CEO wages and bonuses: every structure of management shifts the money upward with very little sign of the companies' profits getting spread out among all employees.  That jump of CEO earnings being 500 times more than their workers' average earnings?  That can't be entirely explained away by cheaper overseas labor: part of it is from those cushy Golden Parachute packages that CEOs get for getting hired by the board to come in and shred everything until the company goes bankrupt.  No incentive to perform well, every incentive to squeeze as much money out of the company as quick as possible to the very few at top who would benefit...

There's a lot of things wrong in our country: the jobless crisis and CEO greed are at the top of the list.  And sad to say, there's nothing Congress wants to do about any of it.

This is where I normally say "we're fucked."  But also Breitbart Delendus Est.  Just because his noise and bullshit are distracting all Americans from the Truth: it's NOT about race, it IS about poverty.

Read more ...

Time To Rally The Unemployed

I'm sick of job-hunting and not finding anything.

I'm sick of placing my resume out there and getting only 2 bites in 2 years.

Above all, I'm sick of those bastard politicians in the Beltway who can't wrap their goddamn heads around the fact that THERE ARE NO GOOD JOBS OUT THERE, THAT NO ONES CREATING MORE JOBS TO FILL, AND WE NEED FINANCIAL AID TO KEEP FOOD ON THE TABLES AND A ROOF OVER OUR HEADS.

These politicians even want to punish the unemployed for being, you know, losers who can't find a job.  They think we're just lazy.  They think we're Welfare Queens.  They think we're preferring a $250 a week benefit payout over a $40,000 a year full-time job.

Time to organize.  Time to send all the unemployed to Washington DC and clog the streets.  Time to walk up to the White House with everyone in a line to drop off our resumes and remind Obama that GODDAMMIT WE NEED WORK!  Time to walk into Congress and... whadda ya mean, they're not gonna let us take the tour?!  Sigh.

Need to speak to NoJobSurvivor.com.  Or MoveOn.  Somebody to get something signed up for August or September.  Set a date, I swear to God we can get 27 million in the streets screaming for jobs.

Read more ...