Different Day, Same Shit.

"Why should I work? President Obama will take other peoples shit and give it to me." - The 47% #tcot #p2 #teaparty
— TheRealAnchovy (@TheRealAnchovy) September 19, 2012

This is the meme wealthy folks like Mitt Romney love hearing their poorer conservative relations spout off. "Why that good for nothing negro's giving people who won't get a job free shit! Why can't hardworkin' folks like me get any breaks? Why give all the lazy bastards/spics/nig*CLANG* all the breaks?"

If anyone's wondering, helping Americans remain on their feet and their heads above water isn't "taking other peoples shit," nor is money-making a zero-sum game, where giving to the poor unfairly takes from the wealthy. But the GOP knows how to twist the issue just to rile up people who can't stand their fellow poor or those blacks or Mexicans down the street getting freebies while they struggle and scrape by*.

I think the main issue is that many wealthy Americans see taxation, especially for the purpose of assisting the poor, as a literal robbery of their fortunes. As they see it, they should be the only ones to decide when, where and how to dispense alms to the poor as they see fit and only if the poor successfully meet their beneficiaries' carefully constructed definition of poverty. For many, Americans would have to march deeper into a Dickensian existence before receiving any hopes of charity.

Speaking of charity, eschewing government welfare for private charities isn't all that's cracked up to be. Charity giving fluctuates with the economy and this previous recession put a big dent in charitable giving:

The stock market may be rebounding, but for charities the negative impact of the recession has only deepened over the past year, according to a survey released this week by the Bridgespan Group, a nonprofit consulting group in Boston.

Ninety-three percent of charity leaders said their organizations are feeling the effects of the economic downturn, according to the survey, which updates similar surveys of more than 100 charity leaders that Bridgespan conducted in November 2008 and May 2009. A year ago, the share of charity leaders reporting that their groups had suffered from the downturn was 75 percent.

Eighty percent of the charities surveyed last month said they had lost financial support, compared with 52 percent in 2008.

Even as the economy showed signs of improvement this summer, many charities continued to struggle. More than 40 percent of charity leaders said their group's financial situation had worsened over the past six months. Only 15 percent said their financial status was improving.

Charity executives have been forced to make some tough decisions. Nearly half said they had dipped into reserves to cope with declining revenue. More than 40 percent said their groups had laid off staff members, compared with only 28 percent in the 2008 survey.

"For many nonprofit groups, the bulk of their costs are employees," says Sarah Sable, a Bridgespan consultant and a co-author of the report. "When you have cuts of greater than 20 percent, you can only do so much on the program side. Ultimately, you'll be forced to make some cutbacks in your staff."

Rising demand and dwindling resources have put many charitable organizations against the wall. Without government welfare around, you can imagine the flood of needy Americans rushing in, only to see a damn-near dry pool of scant charity resources.

And let's not go into religious charitable organizations. Many have prerequisites and conditions that many people might not be comfortable with.

*Nevermind how many of these conservatives freely and quietly accept Social Security Disability payments, Medicaid subsidies and other forms of local and state assistance. The largest group of people currently on welfare today? White women. Even people with advanced college degrees are finding themselves with EBT food stamp cards.

"One of the things that I would do is take all black people back to the South and put them on the plantation so they would understand the ethic of working. I'm going to put them all on the plantation. They need a good hard education on what it is to work."

I think Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson's gonna have a hard time convincing even his fellow House Negros that voluntarily giving one's self up to the "peculiar institution" as a way of building character is a good idea. I guess he never did watch Roots or better still, "Slavery by Another Name."

"Newt (Gingrich) said that he would have black children, minority children work as janitors at school. Working as a janitor would build character, more so than the handouts so many of them like."

"I know some people take it personally because a whole lot of folks don't like hearing the truth; they like to be in denial," he added. "Not all black people, but most black people know, and white people know, and black people say it more in private than they would in public, but for the last 50 years or so, generations and generations of black people have relied on the government or someone else to take care of them."

"Many black women have had babies out of wedlock and passed that on to their daughters that if they have babies out of wedlock, they'll get food stamps, free houses and your rent paid," Peterson said.

There are many ways to instill character and good work ethics in young kids, and making them work a mop and broom at school isn't exactly one of those ways to go about it.* You're not gonna instill a good work ethic in someone by forcing them to reenact the life and times of an ordinary black slave in 1840s Alabama. Resentment and a desire to kill whoever thought this was a good idea, oh yes. Very much so. Also note the stereotypical garbage Peterson spouts at the end. Reads just like an ordinary GOP script.

As I read the above, I began to think about Elizabeth Wright, a woman who shared many of the same traits Peterson's exhibiting, one glaring trait being the compulsion to chastise, upbraid and castigate other blacks within the presence of and for the approval of white America. It's one thing to speak about the problems plaguing the black community; it's another to speak on those problems just to get brownie points from your fellow white conservative friends, many who'd die laughing at the spectacle of one "nigger" whipping another.

...if they have babies out of wedlock, they'll get food stamps, free houses and your rent paid...

Why do conservatives tell themselves this? Being in poverty is not a picnic where you're suddenly showered with all sorts of freebies and an opportunity to live in a life of leisure that even the wealthy 0.1% would envy. Everything comes with a string attached: the food stamps are set at a paltry amount with restrictions on what you can and can't buy, the "free" house is in a shitty neighborhood and requires mandatory community service and surprise "inspections," and that "free" rent suddenly evaporates if you manage to make one cent over the state/federal poverty line. You're given enough to keep you in poverty but not enough to overcome it, in most cases. Poverty isn't luxurious -- it's stressful as hell. But try telling the average conservative making a comfortable $55k to $250k that.

Speaking of conservatives:

According to the report, Peterson himself grew up on an Alabama plantation where his family had once been enslaved, and where members of his family had later worked as share croppers.

It's all coming to focus. I have to wonder if Peterson's ancestors were overseers or trusties back then.

Perhaps the good Rev. should be a bit more honest with us and tell us what he really wants: to forfeit his own right to be considered and treated as a full-fledged human being and be returned to sub-human status, whence he'll be worked from sunup to sundown with the callousness and lack of dignity given to even most common livestock and whipped for his troubles if he reconsiders or steps out of line. He'll be lesser than livestock, but at least he'll be exactly where he wants to be.

*Most Japanese schools have their students pitch in with tidying up the classroom after instruction. As far as I know, the task is largely voluntary, although the collective spirit precludes all but a few from deliberately opting out. But this isn't Japan. 

The whole concept of the "just-world hypothesis" is interesting. It's essentially a coping mechanism that shields people away from the feeling of overall vulnerability, in order to maintain the mystique that you're in control of your own affairs and that you and yours aren't susceptible to the slings and arrows that seem to plague others. Whether it's poverty, discrimination, sexual assault or even death, if you can believe that those are things that happen to other people for some reason that they could control, you won't feel so vulnerable.

The economy is still circling the shitter, for all intents and purposes, and with the growing number of unemployed and the domino effect unemployment has on people's finances and social lives, it's no wonder the just-world hypothesis is catching on with people who don't want to see what's happening to their fellow Americans happen to them and theirs.

That could explain the following. Or perhaps it's just a case of Michigan Republicans being assholes, again:

An undetermined number of Michigan's nearly 2 million food assistance recipients will lose the help under new eligibility requirements the state will begin using in October.

Michigan has determined food assistance eligibility based only on income for roughly a decade. A new policy will include a review of certain financial assets starting Oct 1. The requirements will affect new applicants right away and existing recipients when their cases come up for review, which typically happens once every six months.

Those with assets of more than $5,000 in bank accounts or some types of property would no longer be eligible for food assistance. Other assets that would count against the cap include vehicles with market values of more than $15,000 and second homes, depending on how much is owed on the properties.

Apparently this is Michigan governor Rick Snyder's attempt to get those freeloading Cadillac-driving welfare queens off the public assistance rolls. For those who're already living on the bleeding edge of poverty or somewhere close to it, it's not gonna affect them much. These people thrive on paid-for beaters worth $500 to $2000, dream about owning second homes and the only time they'll have more than $5k in the bank is during tax season.

But this is gonna suck for those once-well-off middle class families who fell on hard times and need a helping hand, as opposed to a boot to the face. Unless you're willing to sell off your car and other assets, and then drain away your bank account, you're out of luck as far as the Rickster is concerned. If you have $5k in the bank, then you don't need food stamps until you've run through that $5k feeding yourself and your family. Then and only then will you become worthy enough to be blessed with a helping hand from a government that would rather not lend one.

And conservatives will go along with this. Combine the just-world hypothesis with America's unique Puritanical views on poverty and sense of achievement, and you have a situation where being poor is seen as a moral defect in which the poor are perfectly capable of controlling at their leisure. In fact, poverty is sometimes seen as a leisure activity, with the poor being "lazy" and whatnot. Sometimes I get the feeling these folks actually think the poor enjoy being in poverty.

For those deep in the just-world hypothesis shit, if you can wail on those poors with austerity-minded legislation that instead transfers wealth under your dull noses and into the bank accounts and investment portfolios of your "betters" (the ones whom deserve all of your praise, with wealth equaling smarts and ambition and drive and whatnot), then you can keep on feeling somewhat impervious while satisfying the bitter asshole that lies in just about every person on Earth.

Some assets, such as primary residences and 401k accounts, would not be considered for determining food assistance eligibility.

Gee, well isn't that swell. Most people can tell you the value of their 401k accounts with only one hand, at best. If they're lucky to have a 401k. I guess the 30,000 college students who were recently kicked off the food stamp rolls wished they had 401k accounts. The ones that actually do happen to be legacy students in Ivy League institutions.

Food assistance benefits came under some scrutiny earlier this year when it was revealed a Michigan man had continued to get food aid from the state despite winning a $2 million lottery jackpot.*

There are a number of people out there who believe if the government's dumb enough to give out "freebies," they're gonna take the government for all they can. Outside the financial and military contracting sectors, this particular philosophy isn't all that it's cracked up to be. But it's like the fine folks in Texas who took away those last meals from death row inmates on account of one stubborn fella -- it's any excuse to bring the hammer down on everyone for the transgressions of a select few.

*To be perfectly honest, $2 million isn't a whole lot of money, especially if that amount happened to be pre-tax. No wonder that person stayed on food stamps.

The national economy is still suffering from a failure of balance. Attempts are on-going to make banks and other major players within the financial sector "whole" with billions upon billions of dollars in financial aid. Meanwhile, most Americans find themselves unable to cover a $1000 emergency if need be. Profits are going up while wages and benefits are going down. This is becoming less of a failure of balance and more of one end of the balance scale being cut off with a pair of bolt cutters.

The blame could be laid directly at the feet of the bankers and the government, but more than enough's been done on that end by so many others that it would just feel like an effort in duplication, if not outright plagiarism. Instead, focus will shift onto the average Dick and Janes of America, most of whom seen the economic damage done by a highly unregulated and insanely well-heeled force and perhaps felt it first hand, but can't quite or don't want to comprehend the need for outright revulsion against it.

"Outright revulsion?" No, it's not some commie/socialist/marxist tactic that exhorts equal redistribution of income according to one's need or such tripe. There are a vast number of Americans who can get pissed off at a multi-faceted corporate entity for taking their money, but go doe-eyed the moment they see the CEO driving the latest Reventon or living it up on the yacht with models in tow. This is very much the country of MTV's "Cribs" and "Real Housewives," where people live vicariously through the voyeuristic displays of other people's wealth. Americans may hate their banks, but they still love their money.

Most Americans are not only star-struck and doe-eyed by the wealthy and the trappings of their wealth, but they also see themselves as being wealthy one day. As such, they want all the advantages and breaks bestowed upon the current wealthy to remain in place for when they, the average Dicks and Janes, eventually arrive, if they ever. Of course, they never do, as the wealthy are wont to make sure no one else gets a chance to climb the ladders of extraordinary success.

Meanwhile, average Dick and Jane are too exhausted from working 50 to 80 hour work weeks for a declining salary/wage and little to no benefits to comprehend any of this. They're too busy wondering how to stretch their budgets to cover ever-increasing bills and ever-rising costs of ordinary food and household items to give this any thought. Spending hours on Facebook or plopping themselves down on the couch for 30 to 45 minute respites from their immediate reality saves them from dwelling on how well they're being fucked by groups of people who could care less about their overall well being.

In the end, you really can't get rid of the "soon, I too shall be among ye" mentality most Americans share when attempting to commiserate with the wealthy unless there is either an immediate pain or a long, drawn out process that slowly beats or breeds this attitude out of them. The former is a great depression that finally hits enough Americans in the wallet for them to illicit immediate correction of their current circumstances or else. The latter involves Americans spending three or more generations under an aristocratic oligarchy, where all of the avenues for the average Dick and Jane "striking it rich" are coldly and cruelly cut off, full stop. It's a world where the only wealth floating around will be generational wealth at the hands of the new gilded class and corporate wealth at the hands of multinational corporate concerns. Sadly, the small business owner, a.k.a. "merchant class" will still ignore reminders that he'll never be fit to be a part of the wealthy. At least he'll still be wealthier than his utterly impoverished contemporaries, which gives him a nice big punching bag to wail on out of arrogance and vanity.

In my personal opinion, the worst thing George W. Bush did during his attempts to sooth the national shock of 9/11 was to tell ordinary Americans to "go shopping." From that moment on, consumerism became the balm that soothed the nation's wounds, aside from always being a reason for being as far as many Americans were concerned -- it's been that way ever since the late 1940s. In a race to achieve that dream of "arriving," many Americans tried to "arrive" on credit -- it's how you get "$30k millionaires" living in mass-produced $700k houses bought with $0-down robo-signed mortgages, driving $50k Corvettes and taking vacations financed by adding another $200k worth of debt on top of the mortgage. Not enough people understood that many of the wealthy got where they are today either with ruthless business dealings, careful and calculated long-term investing or a flat-out inheritance. Trying to "arrive" on credit only results in your card being declined at the swanky restaurant, to your unending embarrassment.

I'm not here to place all of the blame on ordinary Americans for this current financial clusterfuck, but to highlight some of the attitudes that played a part in bringing us to where we are.

As an aside, a lot of the debt problems people are being faced with should be solved with debt forgiveness, if only to prevent the reappearance of generational debt and the looming possibility of debtor's prisons and bonded labor being implemented to recoup unpaid debts alongside garnishments. Corporations wouldn't mind seeing debt criminalized if it meant a swift and effective way of pressuring people into working themselves to death to pay back their debts, and a way to gain access to extremely low cost labor via prison labor without having to depend on today's criminal statues. Most people in this country aren't criminals right now, but with the criminalization of debt...

Student loans are a pet peeve of mine, if only the fact I'm paying mine off at this moment. Many will argue that changing the non-dischargeable nature of student loans will open the floodgates to intentional defaults and bankruptcies, but that problem pales in comparison to the inability of graduates to pay their loans back in a reasonable amount of time, the inflationary nature of student loan aid on university tuition and the havoc student loans play on peoples' credit scores. The ability to discharge a student loan based on a strict criteria of conditions and the willingness of the loan recipients to abide by probationary conditions set during the discharge period, with the understanding that future options may be somewhat limited for the next few years could go a long way towards getting people from under that debt. Either that or the U.S. finally wises up and makes secondary and continuing education completely state-funded and free for all Americans. I doubt that latter option will ever make it on any legislative agenda during this century.

All throughout human history, the poor have always been everyone else's punching bag, boogeyman or chamber pot. These are people who were unfortunate enough to be born into poverty, or unfortunate enough to fall into it thanks to events out of their control or in a few cases, by their own hand. When most people think of the poor, they see people who've gotten where they are because of the latter, because they were simply "lazy," "unmotivated," "not smart enough" or "too busy looking for handouts." This is the Calvinist conservative view that's prevalent in these United States, pushed by wealthy captains of industry and media who want people to believe that being poor is an absolute failure of human character and that the poors are an affront to others around them.

It's already bad enough that many people wholeheartedly believe the poor shouldn't be given a hand-up, at least not with their "taxpayer dollars." And now a gentleman, in the loosest sense of the word, now wants the poors to be kept from exercising a right fought for throughout American history:

Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?
Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

You can understand why Matt is vexed over attempts by the "left-wing" to register poor people -- the poor tend to vote Democrat, as the Dems represent the best chance of enacting social programs that help raise the poor out of poverty so that they won't have to stay...well, poor. Of course, there are those who are likely to abuse these programs, but the specter of fraud as envisioned by conservative interests pale in comparison to the number of people these programs may help and their overall effectiveness in lowering the percentage of people living in the U.S. who are in poverty.

These same people are less likely to vote for the GOP, thanks to the historic zeal shown when it came to dismantling these same social programs. Seeing the GOP shower considerably wealthy individuals and corporate interests with tax breaks, incentives and other freebies under the guise of "motivating job creators" and "getting America back on track" while telling the poor to "get off their asses and get a job" leaves a bitter taste in one's mouth. There's nothing wrong with getting a job, except the job market is sparser than Death Valley and the jobs that are found offer minimum-wage work with double or triple the workload and zero health benefits. And there are single parents, elderly and infirm who may not be able to swing holding down those jobs, at least not without making some serious sacrifices.

The last things conservatives need are 1)successful social programs that fly in the face of everything they stand for, and 2)a larger base of faithful Democrat voters who recoil at the very mention of the GOP. By keeping the poor out of the equation, the playing field is tilted farther towards the favor of the GOP. Republicans are similarly vexed about black and Latino Democrat voters -- the only faithful voters the GOP can count on are avid Fox News viewers, elderly whites and Tea Party supporters. The elderly whites are a dying breed and Tea Party supporters may be a step or two away from breaking out - or being thrown out of the GOP.

As more people join the ranks of the poor due to the fallout of the current economic recession, there grows the possibility of the GOP being set on its hindparts by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who will vote into office those who represent the best chance of helping them get out of poverty. Needless to say, the conservatives just aren't those people.

In affect, Vadum claims the poor people are the wrong people allowed to vote. This same argument was hashed out over allowing women to vote, and then it was hashed out again over allowing blacks to vote. Now the "Motor-Voter" statues allow "anyone with a pulse" to vote. And apparently conservatives are afraid that these groups will work in concert to keep the idea of GOP predominance in democratic voting a far-fetched and rather silly idea.

So who should be the "right" people allowed to participate in what could be said as one of the best public institutions in modern history? As one commentator at the American Thinker pointed out, only white males who owned property were allowed to vote prior to around 1850. At the time, blacks were, at best, 3/5ths of a human being and white women were just their husbands' or fathers' property. These days, we have corporate entities that are considered "people" in the eyes of the law. These "people" are considerably better-heeled than their white male landowning predecessors, with a greater amount of political clout. Going by Vadum's point, the only people who are fit for casting a ballot are the corporate "people," with small consideration made for "small business owners" who hold their allegiance to the GOP and attempt to behave and think like large corporations. These are the same business owners who could easily be knocked into poverty themselves if their businesses are pushed out of competition by larger corporations or if the owner suffers a number of personal or business setbacks.

Another commentator at the same blog had what he apparently thought was a "noble" idea:

I agree completely with this article and have a simple solution to fix it. Every person's vote is weighted according to how much they paid in taxes.   Everyone gets a default value of one.   So of that evil CEO paid $750,000 in taxes, his vote would be the equivalent of 750,000 voters who paid nothing.   No skin in the game, no say is how the real world works, but we would give them a small say.   (Non-shareholders get NO votes in the dealings of a business).   This would be "fair" and serve "justice" as those footing the bill would have the biggest say in what is done with THEIR money.

And this is how the concept of "1 man, 1 vote" flies out the window. On the other hand, those corporate entities would love this very idea, as "democracy" is now weighted heavily towards the interests of those who have the most money and the most resources. All you have to do is throw a little bit of "tax skin" in the game in order to have it rigged in your favor.

Or this could be a diabolically delicious way to get corporations to finally pay their fair share of taxes. Set up that default value of one, but continue raising that equivalent value every fiscal year. If 1 CEO's vote equals those of 700,000 non-tax paying schmucks, raise that equivalent to 14,000,000 the next year, and then...wait, that's a horrible idea.

The poor are considered unfit to cast a ballot, yet the captains of industry and media can cast as many as their heart desires. This is how nations are transformed into oligarchic institutions and banana republics.

I could blog about how John Boner Beaner Boehner punked the President into moving back his jobs speech a day or so, or how he got snubbed by 5 4 NASCAR drivers after extending invitations to a White House reception.* Or I could spend an entire post wondering if Obama's cool, calm, conciliatory demeanor is sending all the wrong signals. Or perhaps how the resident blowhards are calling on his resignation yet again and how people he thought would be on his side are calling him a "straight bitch."

Nah, that's not interesting to me. At least not right now. Hard to make a blog post about things you're rather dispassionate about. Instead, let's talk about how people are dealing with the current, fucked-up state of the U.S. economy:

On June 25, 2010, Frederick Deare punched out for the last time from his job driving a forklift at the Old London factory in the Bronx. That summer, everyone at the plant was being laid off: the oven operators, the assembly-line packers, the forklift drivers, the sanitation workers. Total jobs lost: 228. Old London, the snack manufacturer that invented the Cheez Doodle, was moving its operations to North Carolina. At 53, Mr. Deare, known as Freddy or Teddy Bear to his co-workers, would have to find a new job...

...he got an interview, and the supervisor he met with sounded optimistic about his chances of being hired. But there was no formal offer. Day after day went by. For three weeks the wait stretched on. This time, however, he got the job. And it was a union job, with benefits. He started on April 11 — 290 days after Old London laid him off.

“You’re speaking to a happy man,” he said after his first day. “I am in my glory. I mean, today was wonderful.” 

There was only one downside: The work paid $10 an hour, 40 percent less than he had made at Old London. After taxes, his paycheck was even less than the unemployment benefits he had been collecting. But he tried not to dwell on this. “I don’t let it bother me that I’m getting less, because of the simple fact I have something, and a lot of people have nothing,” he said. “You have to crawl before you can walk.” Four and a half months later, he is still on the job.

This is the new reality ordinary people are dealing with - being "downsized" or "right-sized" out of a decent-paying job and being left to stare into the economic abyss, and if you do manage to find other employment, it's for a fraction of the money you were paid at your old job for doing twice or three times the work, with no health care benefits. A lot of people with masters degrees and doctorates working service industry gigs. And a lot of people who are "independent contractors" or "temporary workers." Lots and lots of people trying to figure out how to survive in the shadow of record profits and record billionaire net worth.

People are figuring out new ways of surviving:

According to Workamper.com, a workamper is “an adventurous individual who has chosen a wonderful lifestyle that combines ANY kind of part-time or full-time work with RV camping. If you work as an employee, operate a business, or donate your time as a volunteer, AND you sleep in an RV (or on-site housing), you are a Workamper. Workampers generally receive compensation in the form of a free campsite, usually with free utilities (electricity, water, and sewer hookups) and additional wages.”

Calling it a “wonderful lifestyle” seems a bit over the top for some workampers. After communicating with Suzann for more than six months and observing the Ellingsworth’s ups and frequent downs, it’s obvious that workamping is not all fun and games, at least for those who hit the road in need of a job to survive.

Most workamper jobs are of the minimum-wage variety. Workampers generally don’t receive unemployment insurance benefits, severance pay or any warning that a job is about to end. Workampers face many of the same job insecurity issues as the millions of Americans who have been downsized due to job outsourcing, financial mismanagement and slow consumer demand for products and services, except workampers are purposely more nimble and have been conditioned to pack up and move to where the jobs are. “We have to be mobile to land a job,” said Suzann. Those who become jobless and live in traditional stationary homes aren’t usually able to move to another city on a moment’s notice.

Since workamping is a nomadic lifestyle, it’s difficult to collect a headcount. Steve Anderson, president of Workamper.com, said the most recent workamper survey is from KOA, but it is dated: “Nearly 10 years ago the KOA Corporation gave an estimate that 750,000 were living the workamping lifestyle. Their data was questioned then and at best was an estimated guess. Over the years we have seen our membership remain in the 14,000 range with thousands of others in the dreaming stages of workamping. It is very transitional lifestyle, meaning folks begin and end the lifestyle every day.”

After being "downsized," "right-sized" or laid off from a decent-paying job with health benefits, after spending months winging it on unemployment, odd temporary jobs and family charity, and after all of the bills, debt collection notices and nights of feeding your family from the food bank and dollar store, you finally land a stable job. Except that the job pays damn-near minimum wage and there aren't any health benefits tied to it. But you're thankful, nonetheless - you have to be in a climate where jobs are few and far between.

You're scared you might lose your job again, so you do anything and everything your employers want. Unpaid overtime, non-existent vacation time, zero health benefits and increased production schedules and work loads that border on superhuman. But you do it anyway, because it's either this or you take another long, painful look into the abyss.

Most major corporations are quite happy with this arrangement, if the record profits are any indicator. That's what happens when you can wring out twice the productivity from your workforce while no longer having to invest much money in them.


*"Scheduling conflicts?" Usually when the President of the United States invites you over for dinner and a photo op, all of your prior engagements fly out the fucking window. It's the ultimate doctor's excuse -- "Sorry boss, can't come into work today - the President's called me over for a few drinks. *hands boss official embossed White House invite*"


**And yes, I know most people have varying definitions of what "comfort" is, but let's not nit-pick over that for now.

History is a literal "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" guide when it comes to things that any normal human being should see coming, but usually don't until is well too late. People may read about history, but they don't really learn anything from it unless it happens to be something immediately tangible they can get out of it like financial gain, and even then they end up dooming themselves thanks to the inevitable greed that comes over them. In short, people are forever stuck in the remedial classes, repeating history because they slept through it and failed hard when it came time for the test.

The socioeconomic elite, mainly the wealthy individuals and families who spend their time in the pursuit of money and power whenever they're not pursuing leisure, always allow greed to overcome their best judgment and forget (or don't care) how continuous hording of 99% of the monetary and physical resources, combined with continuous extortion of that last 1% from the 98% who are flat broke always results in said people rebelling against the elite in the worst ways possible. Sometimes the elite manage to escape to various boltholes prepared for such a purpose. Sometimes they earn a spot on the guillotine or gallows. At any rate, desperate people who are eating shit sandwiches while seeing the elites live high on the hog will snap and get their piece of the action by all means at their disposal.

Which brings me to this fellow by the name of Robert Rector, a gentleman in the loose sense of the word who believes that America's poor are living to high on the hog themselves to be technically poor. Granted, America's sky-high standard of living allows our poor to have more material things than poor people in other nations. Actually, that's the point Rector tries to make.

The overwhelming majority of the public do not regard a family living in these conditions as poor. For example, a poll conducted in June 2009 asked a nationally representative sample of the public whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “A family in the U.S. that has a decent, un-crowded house or apartment to live in, ample food to eat, access to medical care, a car, cable television, air conditioning and a microwave at home should not be considered poor.”[42] 

A full 80 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Democrats agreed that a family living in those living conditions should not be considered poor.