I love Paul Buchheit! His research and articles never disappoint.
I'd like to comment in relation to this quote taken from today's article:
"In Utah, a program called Housing First has cut costs dramatically by providing apartments to the homeless, no strings attached. Similar positive results were experienced in programs in New York City and Seattle. Once-penniless people did just fine with their own homes, acting responsibly, improving their lives, harming no one, and all at a cost savings for the local community."
In a version of political sci-fi, we'd turn the clock back to the housing bubble's burst and instead of HANDING banksters/Wall St. both the funds THEY gambled away on fake products that their own mastermind criminals devised AND the housing they claimed to have owned when people couldn't pay their mortgages.... the housing would have been retained by communities!
Imagine if instead of banksters getting thousands of homes, some to all of those properties were instead granted to local governing boards and a percentage used for this very purpose: Creating housing for the homeless!
Of course, that would stymy the interests of the very effective Private Prison building lobbyist firms who argue for more criminalization of such things as parking tickets in order to ensure a continuous stream of warm bodies into all those private, expensively run prisons THEY are building.
One thing not mentioned was Ronald Reagan's not exactly compassionate conservative remedy for the mentally ill: defund most treatment centers. THAT put a lot of not easily hirable persons out on the nation's streets. (I worried about them when this giant snowstorm blew in.)
When society is run by plutocrats, it's not just morality that goes down the drain. Far more cost-effective ways of using funds and assets get flushed down their golden toilets.
Vulture Capitalism as its finest.
Also interesting to not is that both Republicans and Democrats bus the homeless far away during their conventions. They simply want to put on a how with lots of lies which has little to do with reality.
The system is rotten and has been getting worse decade after decade. A band aide here and there is no longer going to do it.
"Only 1 cent of every food stamp dollar is used in a fraudulent manner."
Consider the above quote in comparison with the kind of fraud carried out by the big banks, the military contractors who can't account for gigantic losses of funds or showers that electrocute soldiers using them, etc.
Were our nation's media NOT in corporate hands, and were outfits like the Koch Brothers not able to influence the tone and nature of the nation's major dialogues, no moral misfit like Paul Ryan could DARE to get up and talk about taking yet more from those with the least in order to further pad the mansions of the already far too well-to-do.
ONLY in a nation where Big Money had such impossible liberties could the exaggerated images of Black Families driving Cadillacs to pick up food stamps hold clout. Where I live, plenty of idiots believe THAT.
"I love Paul Buchheit! His research and articles never disappoint."
I have to laugh, that was virtually exactly the response I was going to post. Thanks for your additions to his post.
Thank you. There are analogies between your posts and mine. You love to delve into the derivative of words, and I like to look to the cosmos in search of patterns: Proof of Divine Order.
Siouxrose, Adam Smith was a moral philosopher and he wasn't a plutocrat. Because he was a philosopher, he didn't test his hypothesis that when humans act out of rational self-interest, the invisible hand of the market produces the greatest good.
The geniuses on Wall Street who caused the housing bubble were not crooks because of deregulation. There were no government regulations (e.g., the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed when Clinton was president) and when the market is unregulated, capitalists will act out of rational self-interest to make as much money as they can. As Gordon Gekko said in the movie "Wall Street": "greed is good." As Ayn Rand wrote: "selfishness is a virtue."
Behavioral economists (this is new science that merges psychology and economics) have actually tested the assumption that humans are rational economic actors and found that when it comes to money, humans are as irrational as they are when it comes to sex.
With regard to the notion that the invisible hand of the market will produce the most good, we already know that the invisible hand of the market results in the concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich. But Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed that: "You can either have concentration of wealth in a few hends or you can have democracy, but you can't have both."
All market econonomists make the assumption that humans are rational when making decisions in the market. But this makes as much sense as developing an astronomy (e.g., Ptolemaic astronomy) that assumes the earth is the center of the universe.
Uh, Siouxrose, both Ockham and Kant said you can't use metaphysics to prove the existence of a God (a Divine Order). However, in response to atheists who think it is irrational to believe in God, Kant said it is not irrational to postulate the existence of God.
The fallacy affirming the consequent: If p, then q; q; therefore, p.
If the system is rotten, the both Democrats and Republicans will bus the homeless away from their conventions.
Both Democrats and Republicans bus the homeless away from their conventions.
Therefore, the system is rotten.
Siouxrose, Paul Ryan (all conservatives) are Social Darwinists who think the rich are rich because they are more fit than the poor who are less fit because they are dependent on the government (e.g., food stamps).
Since nature is governed by "survival of the fittest" (Darwin never used this term), social welfare programs like food stamps are unnatural because they help the less fit at the expense of the more fit who must pay taxes to fund those evil programs.
This is all nonsense because the logic is circular. If I am rich, then it is because I am more fit and if I am more fit, then it is evident in the fact I am rich.
They are too dumb to understood what the very conservative German Chancellor Bismarck understood. "Either the government will enact social welfare programs or the socialists will take over the government." Germany had all kinds of social welfare programs 50 years before FDR came up with Social Security in the US.
The poor will always be with us
Until the rich are not
There was a opinion piece in the Houston Chronicle on the Koch Brothers. You would think, after reading it, that the Koch Brothers were the "second coming of Jesus." After I read the article, I saw that the author was from the American Enterprise Institute. I should have read about the author first.
Not that I believe in MSM, but did anyone here see 60 Minutes this last Sunday. They had a piece on the water in Flint, Michigan and then a longer piece on the "benevolence" of the wealthy who are "giving" their money away. It had Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Again, these sociopath crooks were portrayed as the "second coming of Jesus."
I lose hope for our future with the strength of the propaganda machine in this country.
When you are really down the concept of civic responsibility does not compute. It is only when the possibility of bettering your situation can one even begin to care about anything but the here and now. This is because the now is so bad that you do not want to even think about tomorrow because it will likely be the same. Even if the now is comparatively good you know that it won't last and you still don;t want to think about it.
These people simply clutter up the landscape and are only an unproductive expense. Of course the fat cats want them gone. Once a minimum wage worker loses his or her profit potential as a working consumer they are surplus and waste of money, It is like keeping a broken down horse for a pet.
But aren't you on record vociferously protesting whenever someone blames the Americans for not being informed? But it is OK to call them idiots, perhaps because you are doing it?
Your post reads like an apologia to those who fully understood what deregulation would do, and twisted Clinton's arm to make sure that he would sign-on to the deregulatory madness that screwed up this nation's (and the world's) economy, mass media, labor protections and so much else.
Do you think I don't know about Adam Smith?
I'm too tired to look up the name of the author (Her first name was Nancy) who was recently interviewed on Democracy Now. Her research into the Koch Family reveals roots very similar to the Bush family. Both had dealings with the Nazis and both use their family wealth and position to further the aims of the narrowest of society's interests: themselves and their tiny ilk.
These are social and moral misfits. All of them.
I am going to buy this woman's book as the Koch history is fascinating and they are up to their armpits in every nefarious venture and disinformation campaign that can be imagined. And then some!
You attack me and sign your posts with peace which is the mark of your lack of integrity and honesty.
I never said there were no ignorant persons.
There is a vast difference between pointing to a particular learned ignorance inside the faith-based bible belt and frames that speak of all U.S. citizens (or all persons, for that matter) under one uniform blanket framing. THAT is what I object to; and you don't have the wit, imagination, sensitivity, or vision to recognize WHY I take that position. I don't think you ever will.
I agree with everything you said and most everything you post on this site. I was just pointing out what the MSM is saying and far to many people, I think, believe what they say.
I never realized how powerful media was until I was put in charge of email blasts for a professional organization that I belong to in Houston that has about 1,400 members. When I attend our monthly luncheons after I started the email blasts, many of the members act like I am their best friend and I don't even know their names. Whenever there are board elections, no matter what position I run for, I receive more votes than any of the other board members.
We really need to bring back the "fairness doctrine."