Category Archives: poor

They’re buying air, land, water…

by

Good God, it’s come to fruition…

…how in the hell does one, in good conscience, try to make a profit off of something one had no hand in creating…?  What kind of soulless being thinks it’s okay to do such a thing?

From the story:

Like other aspects of neoliberalism, the commodification of nature forestalls democratic choice. No longer will we be able to argue that an ecosystem or a landscape should be protected because it affords us wonder and delight; we’ll be told that its intrinsic value has already been calculated and, doubtless, that it turns out to be worth less than the other uses to which the land could be put. The market has spoken: end of debate.

~~~~~~

Exactly.  Once the price tag has been set, the $$$ will trump all other values…because one cannot put a price tag on beauty, on value to other beings besides two-leggeds (because all the rest don’t matter, according to these folks), nor can a value be assigned when the benefits are unknown, as most of the natural world’s benefits aren’t known until they’re lost…

Romney’s tax returns

by

The Sunlight Foundation has this up on the lack of sunlight by Romney.  (hat tip to washington post)

The rightwingers are all over this–saying that Romney is a private individual who does not have to disclose his returns.

Um…does anyone else wonder why the rightwing (and the Dems)  are all about snooping into other people’s lives…saying “if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t mind someone reading your emails, watching what books you check out, who you call on the phone (and what you say), and generally destroying the Fourth Amendment…so, um…why do they have a problem with Romney laying his tax return out there?  I mean, if he has nothing to hide….

Looking at the stats on Romney…good grief look at the disparity between him and Obama.  And man, it warmed my heart to see Obama was paying 32%, but as the article states, it’s because of the classification of income–Obama’s coming from book sales.

The rightwingers will make the case that Romney somehow deserves to only pay 13 -15% of his income because it’s investment income…they have wrongly stated that he would be paying taxes on income he’s already paid taxes on. Not true–the investment capital is not taxed again, but the profits he makes on those investments is.   He should be paying 35% on the profits he makes–whether its from investments or from a paycheck.  Incidentally, if he loses money, he gets to deduct that from his taxes owed.

Lastly,  I’m sick of hearing about how great the rich are in contributing to charity–some statement was made awhile back on how much more they give to charity.  Sitting where I am, there is just as much charity with the poor–only they don’t get to deduct that off their taxes, so it isn’t documented.  They will help others out the best that they can–a few bucks or few sheets of typing paper or a few slices of bread to tide one over…that sort of thing.

So…speaking of taxes…here is the 2011 tax table figures:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

If one takes the standard deduction (single), they start taxing you when you make $15,000–minus the $7,000 standard deduction.    It’s stunningly pathetic that the one-percenters like Romney can take taxes off to feed his horse, but a person who every week has to decide whether to pay the light bill or food on the table has to pay taxes on a measily $15k.  Poverty level….

Here is the poverty level, by the way–which is waaaay too low:  http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml

A person making $20,000 per year would be more like it–you can’t afford decent housing at even that level.  You certainly couldn’t put any money away in savings nor could one take even the most simple vacation (camping, etc.).  You’re one paycheck away from being homeless.

I think the reasons for keeping the level so low are listed on the page–it’s used to determine food stamp eligibility and other social services…it’s the same with the false 8% unemployment figures…if you don’t acknowledge a problem exists, or acknowledge the scope of the problem, then you don’t have to get off your butt and do something about it.

 

Following the trail…

by

I picked up an old copy of The Nation over the weekend, the date:  10-1-2001.  It was the first issue after 9/11, and prominently featured the twin towers on the cover.  In it was a story that I don’t recall reading, and given the upheaval of that moment in time, I probably didn’t read it.

However, the story was worthy of the cover had it not been for the tragedy of the weeks before–

The report by Amy Bach, an attorney, was on the Federalist Society and its infiltration into law schools all over the country.

In it, she showed the web of connections that this “society” was constructing–conservative law students (Antonin Scalia was one) who didn’t like their liberal law professors’ point of view, and wanted to do something about it.  That something was the Federalist Society to encourage conservative students to organize, and then make connections to the power players in the White House and the Supreme Court.

Bach names names and one of them is Jeff Sutton.  He argued the cases Alexander v. Sandoval and University of Alabama et al v. Garrett. (link here: http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/vol11_no4/art1p1.html)

I did a search to see where Sutton was now–here:  http://www.onu.edu/node/34771

and here:  http://abovethelaw.com/tag/jeffrey-sutton/

Well, of course he was nominated to a judge position by Bush.

From the article:

“…it [Federalist policy] benefits big business, it’s anti-egalitarian, it shuts plaintiffs like the poor and disabled out of courts, and it rolls back the New Deal notion that the courts have a role to play in helping the downtrodden.”

However, Bach noted organizations of progressive and centrists, one of which is the American Constitution Society.  The problem with getting organized is that progressives are not as narrow-minded, but independent in thought.  It’s soooo much easier to organize when your targets are the poor, disabled, women, minorities, etc.–you know, people who have less power to fight back.

From the dark side…

by

…I try not to give Limbaugh more attention, as they say whatever you give attention to gives it power…but today, as I moved the dial past Limbaugh’s show, I couldn’t help myself…

He is heavily trying to divert attention from the Bain/Romney deal by arguing that corporations are not people…so, therefore, there is no way that Romney could have had anything to do with Bain sending jobs overseas.  Romney makes patronizing speeches about bringing jobs back to the U.S.–saying he “knows what it takes” to bring jobs back–yeah, it takes workers willing to work for $3.00 an hour…(While Limbaugh continues the slams on those on welfare–you lazy good-for-nothings, getting off your ass and get a freaking job….)

~~~~~~~~

Next we have a racist and sexist statement all rolled into one:  “Elizabeth Warren, Indian squaw…”

First, he and his ilk were all over her for claiming to be a Native American…even after it had been in the news that she was, in fact, Native American.  Now he degrades her and her heritage by that racist statement.  Squaw is a derogatory term the French gave the women–it means vagina. I believe they also named the Grand Tetons…I’ll leave your imaginations to what female body parts that name refers to…

 

Farm Bill

by

I’m late with this, but it’s nice to know others are out there fighting for those of us most affected by this.  The cuts in food stamps…i.e., the “Eat Shit” campaign of those compassionate conservatives who think all life is precious…as long as you’re a conservative and wealthy….poor people should just dry up and blow away and “decrease the surplus population…”

From the email sent to the organic advocates group I belong to:

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) and other hill champions are coordinating Members
of Congress to make ‘one minute’ speeches in opposition to the House Ag
Committee’s proposed cuts to SNAP. When you call your Members of Congress
today, ask him/her to speak out on the House floor in support of SNAP
tomorrow, *July 10 at noon or on Wed., July 11th at noon*. If interested,
House offices should contact LaDavia Drane (ladavia.drane@ mail.house. gov)
in Rep. Fudge’s office. “One Minutes” are first come, first serve.

~~~~~~~~~~~
“House Republicans think a working poor household with $2,000 in assets
shouldn’t be getting food stamps – an average of $1.50 per meal – but they
don’t seem to have problems with far wealthier insurance companies and
agribusiness getting much bigger handouts from the Farm Bill,” noted Dunlea.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the House bill would cut spending
over ten years by more than $35 billion, the Senate bill $23 billion.****

“****America* ***’s children, seniors and 1.5 million veteran households
facing a constant struggle against hunger deserve better from Congress,”
said Senator Gillibrand of the House bill.****

The House bill does not include several amendments attached to the Senate
bill, including one that required those getting subsidized crop insurance
to comply with conservation requirements and another that reduce by 15
percentage points the share of crop insurance premiums the government pays
for farmers with adjusted gross incomes of more than $750,000. Currently
the government bears an average 62 percent of crop insurance premiums

~~~~~~~~~

The quote from Henry Kissinger popped in my head. Link Here:

http://www.corporate-aliens.com/quotes/getquote.php?Henry-Kissinger&quoteid=1427

Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.
Yeah, that about sums up the disaster the world is in right now, doesn’t it?
~~~~~~~~~
A really good article here on conventional versus organic farming.  I take issue with the yields being 25 percent more in conventional farming–I’ve read differently–especially when it comes to drought conditions.  Rodale did a comparison of conventional versus organic farming and found that the crop loss from bugs, etc., was minimal, and when they were in a drought, the organic soil was better able to retain moisture, helping the crop to survive.  If you look at the soil samples in the article, it’s plain to see the difference in soils. I used to have a compost bin at my house, and it was so amazing to put food scraps in the bin, along with leaves, sticks, and stuff, and see it magically transform into rich compost.  Compost is amazing in that it can help break up clay soils and will also help sandy soils to hold moisture.
In the ecology textbook I’m reading, they bring up an important point:  pesticides not only kill the bugs the farmers don’t want on the crop, but they also kill off beneficial bacteria in the soil which the plants need to thrive.  Also, I’ve read that the outbreaks in salmonella and e. coli could easily have been avoided with organically grown food–the beneficial bacteria love to eat them.
Here in the corn belt, we are experiencing a severe drought.  They have pretty much given up on the corn crop, and are unsure about soybeans.  Again I wonder at the wisdom of so much land being devoted to grains, instead of growing nuts, which don’t require chemicals to grow, and the trees help soil erosion.
Also, people are watering their lawns, which drives me up a wall–they cut the grass to two or less inches, and then wonder why the grass dies.  Grass should be grown to at least 3 inches so the roots will grow deeper, allowing it to find moisture when it’s dry out.  I never had a problem with my grass dying when I still had my house/lawn.  But you never, ever hear about this when they’re talking about people watering their lawns.
Finally, I like the idea of subsidizing farms based on how much carbon they leave in the soil.  Great idea.  Probably won’t go anywhere if Monsanto doesn’t like the idea…

DN, III

by

Okay, the last story on DN, Gov. Rick Perry said he was going to refuse the Obama Healthcare, which would mean he would refuse all money for medicaid.

So…I’d like to see Gov. Perry look a young pregnant and poor woman in the eyes and tell her that she can’t go for prenatal checkups.  Is this what they mean by compassionate conservatives?  Why is it that when a woman wants to end the pregnancy with abortion that they say that she can’t do that because life is precious, but then deny her healthcare in order to have a healthy child?

On the flip side, she should be allowed to choose her provider— i.e., a midwife with a home birth is what she prefers, then that should be covered, as well.  I have to laugh when I hear stories of how shocked people are when women who birth on their own “before the medical profession can intervene”…as if women have only given birth in hospitals since time began…

Newsflash:  obstetricians, who make their $$ off of hospital births, are claiming that home births are much more dangerous than hospital births…

…meanwhile, bankers say that people who finance their homes through private lenders at lower interest rates are in danger of…of…of….well, they don’t know, but terrible, terrible things happen when people start making independent decisions…/snark

Back to the article–the shocking rate of 32% of births being made through Caesarean is outrageous.  Interference with the natural birth process so you won’t get sued means you’re in the wrong profession (if you’re that inept).  And you might note the reference that C-sections cost more $$…jaysus h, if they’re using it for making a profit, that is unconscionable!

The UK has this website up–gives women more information so they can make a decision.  Good God, what will they think of next? Allowing women to wear pants? /snark

I know that if I were better informed, I would have had my kids at home.  The hospital births were  a nightmare and the interference by the doctors and staff made it miserable instead of a joyous occasion.  And I’ve read that the position of the woman being on her back (which I was) is the most dangerous position for her to labor in…but it’s more convenient for doctors…perhaps someone should bring that up when they claim to be worried about the safety of home births.