Whose blood?

October 6th, 2009 9:43 am · 13 comments

Frightening piece by David Glenn Cox, and in one very important respect I think he’s absolutely correct:

When you overlay a 1930’s style depression on our current society you begin to see just how important the New Deal was. It cooled tempers and gave hope to the poor. Today, however, the New Deal was issued to the banks and they are quickly making a comeback. In 1932 Roosevelt closed the banks and then throttled them. The money was pushed into the bottom of the economy rather than the top. So let’s call this attempt the Raw Deal because that’s what Americans have gotten, a raw deal.

Under the New Deal the banks and the stock market didn’t fully recover until the 1950’s, long after the economy overall had recovered. But this time around the banks have recovered and the public has been left to languish. I hope for another New Deal, not because I’m a Democrat but because the greatest fear that politicians had in the 1930’s was of a revolution and blood in the streets, and as we see every day in the news people aren’t as nice as they used to be.

And Cox’s insinuation is that there is going to be blood in the streets this time around. I don’t think he’s wrong.

The question becomes, whose blood? And the answer is, the poor. Because as Cox notes, this is a meaner society; and it’s not just those at the top of the economic food chain; its those near the bottom, the people who are barely eking out a living themselves yet remain staunchly opposed to the idea of “we” because that’s communism. And so - a la Rick Santelli - they cop the idea that anyone who can’t pay off a mortgage is a deadbeat, that the poor deserve to be poor, and they’ll be damned if they sacrifice one iota more.

But at the same time, they cheerlead the idea of pushing the money to the top of the economic pyramid. We have to give the rich more money because they’ll create jobs! They’ll take care of all of us! So this is why Glenn Beck spends so much more time worrying about SEIU than he does about Goldman Sachs. Sure, conservatives didn’t like the bank bailouts but then they get all bent out of shape when teh evil socialists suggest capping executive compensation. They wanted to let General Motors fail in large part becuase they wanted to punish the unions.

And so in this atmosphere, more and more money is pushed to the top; and conservatives cheer that because even now, they are invested in the idea of trickle down. Well, how much of this is trickling down? The unemployment rate is going to top 10 percent soon; using the broadest measure of unemployment - one which includes the underemployed and those who have simply quit looking for work - you’re nearing 20 percent.

Where’s their trickle down? Ah, they have none. Because they deserve their fate. Right?  Probably made some bad decisions along the way for which they should be punished. You’ll be damned if you give them anything - and moreover, you don’t want the system to give them anything. The system must keep pushing to money to the top. And so it does.

And so those at the bottom become more desperate. Desperate people do dangerous things. And so we need more cops, and the Glenn Beck fans - working-class people who live in neighborhoods most likely to be affected by crime rates driven up by the crashing economy - will hate the poor even more. And will howl for their blood. It’s coming. In fact, it’s already here.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  13 comments  Tags: Poverty · Glenn Beck · Class · Economy

There are currently 13 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
Bouquet
10/6/09
10:10 AM		Don't worry, we have well regulated Militias ready to provide security to our free state and provide for the common defense. That's the exact, specific, Constitutional reason folks are allowed to buy all those guns.

The Constitution would never allow folks to load up with guns to fight AGAINST the government.
ceejay
10/6/09
10:43 AM
QUOTE (Lancaster Online @ Oct 6 2009, 09:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.

Keep fanning those flames, Gil! Keep whipping up the frenzy! Keep escalating the rhetoric. Keep deepening the divide. Oh, and don't forget -- keep injecting <FEAR> (cue the scary music).

You are becoming our own small town Glen Beck! Hmmmm. Ratings envy, I'm thinkin'.
mam0412
10/6/09
11:55 AM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 6 2009, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Keep fanning those flames, Gil! Keep whipping up the frenzy! Keep escalating the rhetoric. Keep deepening the divide. Oh, and don't forget -- keep injecting <FEAR> (cue the scary music).

You are becoming our own small town Glen Beck! Hmmmm. Ratings envy, I'm thinkin'.


I think it's a pretty on-point piece and worthy of discussion. I wouldn't be too quick to write it off as "fanning the flames". Fanning the flames is calling Obama a Marxist/Socialist when he clearly isn't. Or whipping up the tea parties based on the false premise that the tea parties would represent the unity of America's feelings on 9/12/2001. The logic of that one blew my mind. Anyway, there is much truth to this piece.

As for discussion, I do think the bail outs worked to stabilize the financial industry. I work in the financial industry and sadly, I have seen many job losses - and they most certainly were not coming from top management. Middle management, support, and clerical positions got the boot. The same way it's always been since I started working in the 80s (at the start of Reagan's great capitalist boost). I'm lucky and thankful to still have a job! I fail to understand the "top-heaviness" in this industry when the bulk of those positions are basically figureheads or rather geographic sales management. I will say middle and top managers were not given pay raises, but heavy bonuses still exist with no real basis on growth or performance. Middle America and the poor are being squeezed with higher prices and job losses. I have seen the job losses in this industry level off recently though.

As for recovery, I am all for slow recovery though, even though I'd like to see more jobs created. I think we need to be more the tortoise than the hare we've been. Slow and steady wins the race. We've unfortunately become of culture of quick hit money-making schemes. Remember the dot.com bust? The real estate bust which lead to all this? There used to be a time when buying a house was a long-term investment. During the boom, it was nothing but quick turnovers to make profit. And, look at all the people that expected Obama to fix the country in his first 6 months. I realize some of that is just plain rhetoric, but some people actually think this way. The expectation is for quick hit money-making schemes to continue (so stocks go up, up up), but it's just so wrong on so many levels. The quick hits are what lead shady transactions and to corruption and finally to failed economies.

But it's time to put in some regulations. Split up financial institutions back to their working parts - insurance, investment, and banking. Quit the securitizations. And bonuses need to be tied better to performance. Long-term planning needs to come back into existence. There's no such thing anymore. It's pretty much day-to-day at this point. We also need new ideas to generate jobs. Green energy and green jobs seem to be an interesting route to take. Particularly renewable energy. We need to moonshot that - we're a smart country, why can't we do this? And yes, it calls for a shift in skills. Which is where education funding comes in. There's many more things we can do that simply cannot be listed in a short TB post, but people just need to have more of a long-term view than short-term expectations and to "think outside the box". I know that doesn't help people who are in dire straights at this moment but I don't have any problem paying more taxes to help those people get back on their feet - even though I continue to be squeezed with higher prices. We all succeed when we all succeed.
clanker
10/6/09
11:59 AM		Very nice. Very intelligent.
ceejay
10/6/09
1:15 PM
QUOTE (mam0412 @ Oct 6 2009, 11:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think it's a pretty on-point piece and worthy of discussion. I wouldn't be too quick to write it off as "fanning the flames". Fanning the flames is calling Obama a Marxist/Socialist when he clearly isn't. Or whipping up the tea parties based on the false premise that the tea parties would represent the unity of America's feelings on 9/12/2001. The logic of that one blew my mind. Anyway, there is much truth to this piece.

As for discussion, I do think the bail outs worked to stabilize the financial industry. I work in the financial industry and sadly, I have seen many job losses - and they most certainly were not coming from top management. Middle management, support, and clerical positions got the boot. The same way it's always been since I started working in the 80s (at the start of Reagan's great capitalist boost). I'm lucky and thankful to still have a job! I fail to understand the "top-heaviness" in this industry when the bulk of those positions are basically figureheads or rather geographic sales management. I will say middle and top managers were not given pay raises, but heavy bonuses still exist with no real basis on growth or performance. Middle America and the poor are being squeezed with higher prices and job losses. I have seen the job losses in this industry level off recently though.

As for recovery, I am all for slow recovery though, even though I'd like to see more jobs created. I think we need to be more the tortoise than the hare we've been. Slow and steady wins the race. We've unfortunately become of culture of quick hit money-making schemes. Remember the dot.com bust? The real estate bust which lead to all this? There used to be a time when buying a house was a long-term investment. During the boom, it was nothing but quick turnovers to make profit. And, look at all the people that expected Obama to fix the country in his first 6 months. I realize some of that is just plain rhetoric, but some people actually think this way. The expectation is for quick hit money-making schemes to continue (so stocks go up, up up), but it's just so wrong on so many levels. The quick hits are what lead shady transactions and to corruption and finally to failed economies.

But it's time to put in some regulations. Split up financial institutions back to their working parts - insurance, investment, and banking. Quit the securitizations. And bonuses need to be tied better to performance. Long-term planning needs to come back into existence. There's no such thing anymore. It's pretty much day-to-day at this point. We also need new ideas to generate jobs. Green energy and green jobs seem to be an interesting route to take. Particularly renewable energy. We need to moonshot that - we're a smart country, why can't we do this? And yes, it calls for a shift in skills. Which is where education funding comes in. There's many more things we can do that simply cannot be listed in a short TB post, but people just need to have more of a long-term view than short-term expectations and to "think outside the box". I know that doesn't help people who are in dire straights at this moment but I don't have any problem paying more taxes to help those people get back on their feet - even though I continue to be squeezed with higher prices. We all succeed when we all succeed.


Fanning the flames is using incendiary, inflammatory speech. It is also putting words in people's mouths. And Gil Smart is no different than Glen Beck. He just does it online or on paper.

The following are direct quotes from Gil Smart:

"...blood in the streets ... whose blood? ... the poor ..."

deserved their fate
should be punished (???????)
"they'll be damned if they sacrifice one iota more"
"you'll be damned if you give them anything"
desperate people do dangerous things
we need more cops
"Beck fans ... will hate the poor even more"
"will howl for their blood"

And best of all -- dim the lights!!!! -- cue the Halloween music -- "IT'S COMING! IT'S ALREADY HERE!!!!!"

Really? Did I miss all those Militia people with guns mowing down the poor of Lancaster??? Did Mayor Gray get right on it and clean up all that blood before I drove through this morning? blink.gif
mam0412
10/6/09
1:37 PM
QUOTE (ceejay @ Oct 6 2009, 01:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Fanning the flames is using incendiary, inflammatory speech. It is also putting words in people's mouths. And Gil Smart is no different than Glen Beck. He just does it online or on paper.

The following are direct quotes from Gil Smart:

"...blood in the streets ... whose blood? ... the poor ..."

deserved their fate
should be punished (???????)
"they'll be damned if they sacrifice one iota more"
"you'll be damned if you give them anything"
desperate people do dangerous things
we need more cops
"Beck fans ... will hate the poor even more"
"will howl for their blood"

And best of all -- dim the lights!!!! -- cue the Halloween music -- "IT'S COMING! IT'S ALREADY HERE!!!!!"

Really? Did I miss all those Militia people with guns mowing down the poor of Lancaster??? Did Mayor Gray get right on it and clean up all that blood before I drove through this morning? blink.gif

Whatever you say. Careful, you don't hurt yourself when you fall off that soapbox while you fan some flames yourself. You might fall in the fire you created. I guess it is easier to pick on the rhetoric than to intelligently discuss the fate of the nation.
citydweller
10/6/09
2:52 PM		I think the comparison between FDR's "new deal" and the current "raw deal" (put into motion by Bush, over $1 Trillion by Nov. 2008) is spot-on.

The government has already spent about $3 Trillion bailing out Wall Street and Corporate America™, and has committed to close to $13 Trillion, with no ceiling, in the "hose up" recovery plan.

Now, we've all seen the emails screaming that this money, if just given out to every American citizen, would have garnered us each something like $75,000 and resurrected the economy, banks and car-makers be damned. That's not entirely accurate.

But, the hysterical emails shouldn't be discounted as entirely false simply because they're, well, hysterical.

In truth, if the money already spent "hosing up" was divided evenly between every American (citizen) man, woman and child, each would have received about $8,500. That's $34,000 to a family of four, a substantial sum to the "average American". The $17,000 my wife and I would have received would have taken us completely out of debt, sent me to a dozen or so estates and auctions to buy merchandise, and left a small egg in the bank as a buffer. We wouldn't be wealthy by any measure, but we would be recovering, which isn't currently the case.

Taken further, if we gave the total ($13 Trillion and rising) recovery cost committed thus far to the American public, we're talking more like $45,000 per man, woman and child. Now you're talking buying power.

Keeping it close to home, if me and the Mrs. received a gummint check for $90,000, we'd do a lot more than plug the holes in the dam, we'd invest in our future. I'd do everything I outlined above, and sock a good bit away somewhere with a stable interest rate, and borrow against our property's equity to expand our business, complete renovations to the building and green the roof, put up a couple solar panels, a rainwater recovery system, and a substantial garden. The $8,000 - $10,000 I'd get back from the State for all the solar/green stuff (money still available) would only sweeten the deal. Oh yeah, all the improvement and solar/green work would pay people who had jobs. And if it went even moderately well, I'd probably hire someone to help in the shop.

Debt recovery, business growth, borrowing, property improvement, green initiatives, alternative energy, increased self-sufficiency, new jobs. Gee, isn't that what we're supposed to be doing to fix our broken country? Seems like we could actually be doing some of this if our leaders gave $13 Trillion to America's citizens, who own the play money to begin with, instead of doling it out to corrupt and greedy Korporations.

And yeah, I know plenty of people who haven't figured out what time it is would just take the money and buy an Escalade or take a dream vacation. But until eugenics becomes popular again we're going to have idiots. And meanwhile, slimy corporate execs have used enough of our money in bonuses to buy fleets of Escalades while taking a world tour, again.

See, "new deal" = "give the money to the people who need it, to spend and grow", "RAW deal" = "give the money to the companies who squandered it away once, and plan to rinse and repeat".

Let the banks and auto-makers fail. Some will survive and get their acts together. The ones that don't shouldn't. And if I have a sustainable business, an earth-friendly home, food on my table and the ability to hire someone who needs a job, and my situation can be repeated tens of thousands of times across the country, then we might actually recover.

Just stimulate me, Barry.
ceejay
10/6/09
5:21 PM
QUOTE (mam0412 @ Oct 6 2009, 01:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Whatever you say. Careful, you don't hurt yourself when you fall off that soapbox while you fan some flames yourself. You might fall in the fire you created. I guess it is easier to pick on the rhetoric than to intelligently discuss the fate of the nation.

I don't like Glenn Beck. I don't like hyperbole. But I don't like it any better when it comes from the Left, or when it comes from Gil Smart. Same tone. Same sky is falling message.

Want to intelligently discuss the fate of the nation? Start the discussion. Because Gil Smart didn't do that. Gil Smart is as much an arsonist as Glenn Beck. I didn't create any fires. But rhetoric like those guys is accelerant.
clanker
10/6/09
5:38 PM		It would be pretty boring on here without Gil throwing us some meat to fight over occasionally.
citydweller
10/6/09
9:49 PM		**bump**
mam0412
10/7/09
8:41 AM
QUOTE (citydweller @ Oct 6 2009, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think the comparison between FDR's "new deal" and the current "raw deal" (put into motion by Bush, over $1 Trillion by Nov. 2008) is spot-on.

The government has already spent about $3 Trillion bailing out Wall Street and Corporate America™, and has committed to close to $13 Trillion, with no ceiling, in the "hose up" recovery plan.

Now, we've all seen the emails screaming that this money, if just given out to every American citizen, would have garnered us each something like $75,000 and resurrected the economy, banks and car-makers be damned. That's not entirely accurate.

But, the hysterical emails shouldn't be discounted as entirely false simply because they're, well, hysterical.

In truth, if the money already spent "hosing up" was divided evenly between every American (citizen) man, woman and child, each would have received about $8,500. That's $34,000 to a family of four, a substantial sum to the "average American". The $17,000 my wife and I would have received would have taken us completely out of debt, sent me to a dozen or so estates and auctions to buy merchandise, and left a small egg in the bank as a buffer. We wouldn't be wealthy by any measure, but we would be recovering, which isn't currently the case.

Taken further, if we gave the total ($13 Trillion and rising) recovery cost committed thus far to the American public, we're talking more like $45,000 per man, woman and child. Now you're talking buying power.

Keeping it close to home, if me and the Mrs. received a gummint check for $90,000, we'd do a lot more than plug the holes in the dam, we'd invest in our future. I'd do everything I outlined above, and sock a good bit away somewhere with a stable interest rate, and borrow against our property's equity to expand our business, complete renovations to the building and green the roof, put up a couple solar panels, a rainwater recovery system, and a substantial garden. The $8,000 - $10,000 I'd get back from the State for all the solar/green stuff (money still available) would only sweeten the deal. Oh yeah, all the improvement and solar/green work would pay people who had jobs. And if it went even moderately well, I'd probably hire someone to help in the shop.

Debt recovery, business growth, borrowing, property improvement, green initiatives, alternative energy, increased self-sufficiency, new jobs. Gee, isn't that what we're supposed to be doing to fix our broken country? Seems like we could actually be doing some of this if our leaders gave $13 Trillion to America's citizens, who own the play money to begin with, instead of doling it out to corrupt and greedy Korporations.

And yeah, I know plenty of people who haven't figured out what time it is would just take the money and buy an Escalade or take a dream vacation. But until eugenics becomes popular again we're going to have idiots. And meanwhile, slimy corporate execs have used enough of our money in bonuses to buy fleets of Escalades while taking a world tour, again.

See, "new deal" = "give the money to the people who need it, to spend and grow", "RAW deal" = "give the money to the companies who squandered it away once, and plan to rinse and repeat".

Let the banks and auto-makers fail. Some will survive and get their acts together. The ones that don't shouldn't. And if I have a sustainable business, an earth-friendly home, food on my table and the ability to hire someone who needs a job, and my situation can be repeated tens of thousands of times across the country, then we might actually recover.

Just stimulate me, Barry.

I agree with your premise City, but not sure about your figures. I remember when the stimulus was started last fall, these large figures per person were being passed around, but in checking the numbers, it looked like an extra 0 was added to the individual level. I remember the emails/blogs said it worked out to something like $4,500 per person (don't recall the exact number, but it was in this range - this was after the 1st stimulus), but it really was only $450 per person if you checked the math. Still not a small sum, but probably not enough for individual folks/families to go out spending 'til the cows come home in this environment.
citydweller
10/7/09
12:59 PM
QUOTE (mam0412 @ Oct 7 2009, 08:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree with your premise City, but not sure about your figures. I remember when the stimulus was started last fall, these large figures per person were being passed around, but in checking the numbers, it looked like an extra 0 was added to the individual level. I remember the emails/blogs said it worked out to something like $4,500 per person (don't recall the exact number, but it was in this range - this was after the 1st stimulus), but it really was only $450 per person if you checked the math. Still not a small sum, but probably not enough for individual folks/families to go out spending 'til the cows come home in this environment.


Actually, you're right about the numbers being off. I has low and high, but my computer's calculator and a double-check on how many zeros in a trillion (12) got it right.

If you say the U.S. population is about 300 million legal citizens and cap the bailout at 13 trillion, with 3 trillion already spent:

3 Trillion (3,000,000,000,000) divided by 300 million (300,000,000) = 10,000.00

13 Trillion (13,000,000,000,000) divided by 300 million (300,000,000) = 43,333.33
mam0412
10/7/09
2:12 PM
QUOTE (citydweller @ Oct 7 2009, 12:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Actually, you're right about the numbers being off. I has low and high, but my computer's calculator and a double-check on how many zeros in a trillion (12) got it right.

If you say the U.S. population is about 300 million legal citizens and cap the bailout at 13 trillion, with 3 trillion already spent:

3 Trillion (3,000,000,000,000) divided by 300 million (300,000,000) = 10,000.00

13 Trillion (13,000,000,000,000) divided by 300 million (300,000,000) = 43,333.33

It's still borrowing against our future, but I'd say give it only to taxpayers, since taxpayers are the ones paying for it. So, reducing your divisor increases your take! But, then you have to take out our increase in taxes to pay for it. Not sure what it works out to, but let's go with that. I'm ready to spend! I need to replace the carpeting in my house.
View Topic | Comment on this blog
Home | News | Sports | Business | Entertainment | Lifestyle | Opinion | Spanish | Classifieds | Jobs | Homes | Autos
Terms of Service | Contact Us | Ephrata Review | Lititz Record | Lancaster Farming
Copyright 2004-2009