Sunday, September 18, 2011

Who he callin' Slacker?

Greetings good citizen,

I’m somewhat delighted to get away from the dreary track of reporting the inevitable demise of our social model, even if only by means of examining another aspect of it…

Since the next presidential election cycle is getting underway it was only a matter of time before someone regurgitated this old chestnut…

Steve King (R-IA) took to the House floor yesterday to give a diatribe against large swaths of the social safety net, from food stamps to heating fuel subsidies, but reserved particular disdain for unemployment insurance, which he dismissed as “welfare for people that won’t work.” Via Political Correction:

KING: The United States of America borrows money and hands it to people and tells them, you don’t have to work for this. You don’t have to produce anything for this. We just want you to spend it. [...]

The former speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi, has consistently said that unemployment checks are one of those reliable and immediate forms of economy recovery. [...] The 80 million Americans that are of working age but are simply not in the workforce need to be put to work. We can’t have a nation of slackers and then have me have to sit in the Judiciary Committee listening to them argue that there’s work that Americans won’t do, so we have to import people to do the work that Americans won’t do, and borrow money to pay the welfare for people that won’t work. That is a foolish thing for a nation to do. We’ve gotta get this country back to work and get those people out of the slacker rolls and onto the employed rolls.

Zipperhead pretty much says in the video what is written here.

Is this simply more evidence of how much the right wing enjoys doing a hatchet job on those who disagree with them? (One needs to subscribe to the notion that all business owners are, by default, conservative.)

The people they can’t use (in any given day) are SLACKERS who should be punished for their…well, that doesn’t matter.

Which is to lament the fact that the superfluous don’t literally ‘die’ when they are ‘terminated’…(much to the chagrin of those who can no longer ‘profitably’ employ them.)

Is Bozo so empty headed that he doesn’t understand the ‘true purpose’ of ‘social insurance’?

Why did the ‘wise men’ of the past grant remuneration to those they could no longer employ?

Well, initially, it was a shitload cheaper than rebuilding the factory…

Man, if nothing else, is a vengeful creature.

But that is not the ‘wisdom’ behind social insurance…the ‘wisdom’ lies in the fact of where these funds ultimately end up!

Why the fuck do you think they let people collect for 99 weeks these days?

Think of it as ‘fire insurance’.

But besides that the funds go where all funds go in our fucked up, lopsided economy, they go ‘up’.

No irony should be lost on the fact that many of today’s ‘truly wealthy’ are, er, ‘foregoing’ interest on their accumulated wealth. Hell, they’re PAYING banks to hold their rapidly eroding funds!

(Mostly because it is unsafe to keep that much cash hanging around…worse, the cost of protecting that much cash would only cause it to lose value that much quicker!)

Which brings us to another puzzle piece. How do you ‘stabilize’ the value of money?

You eliminate interest!

(Once you erase the power of money to make more money simply by existing, the value of money actually returns to its ‘intended function’ of becoming a ‘storehouse of value!’

Pretty magical, don’t you think?

But, once again, I digress.

Prices would still ‘fluctuate’ with supply and demand but they would tend to ‘hover’ around their ‘historical mean’ (assuming a stable money supply relative to population size.)

But enough of basic economics! Back to stupid conservatism!

So who is a representative of the conservative party calling ‘slackers’?

Why it is the working (and voting) poor…when the term originally meant the ‘idle class’, the rich who don’t need to labor.

But hey, you adapt what you can and ignore the rest.

SO, to clarify, your social insurance isn’t a ‘gift’ to you, you don’t get to keep it.

No irony should be lost on the fact that the people who DO get to keep it were the same people who voted to give it to you!

Which is to point out that much of what we were taught was ‘altruism’ in fact has ‘strings attached’.

The ‘original intent’ was to keep the payments flowing…isn’t that what predatory capitalism is all about?

Thanks for letting me inside your head…


PS. Don’t even get me started on $10,000 an OUNCE gold or the fact that millionaires no longer matter, the bar is now set to BILLIONAIRE!

No comments:

Post a Comment