Skip to main content

If any one act of regressive deconstruction instigated by the neocon fringe in this country defines their basic principles under the presumption that one is judged by what one does and not necessarily what one says, we need look no further than to the cavalier way in which congress discarded an entire segment of the middle class by legislating extended unemployment benefits out of existence during the last budget battle.

Further, that the democrats agreed to this - and the President signed it into law- for the sole purpose of getting a "bipartisan" budget passed is equally telling: from this it can be seen that such behavior is not necessarily a function of political proclivity but more accurately a fundamental component of the animalistic side of human nature governed by situational morality.

"By their fruits ye shall know them" -  such is observed in the scriptures of many faiths. The tragic evidence presented below the fold illuminates one glaring example of the systematic destruction of this country by self-styled "patriots" who happen to own 99% of the wealth.

There appears to be a common thread among people who are handsomely compensated to absurd degrees of excess yet produce nothing of substance but administrative bilge designed to maximize profit at the expense of the people who actually create things: once they reach a certain income level where their energy, housing and medical costs are inconsequential, other human beings become disposable, inconvenient speed bumps on their road to perpetual security. Suddenly, those in need become "thieves". In their world, destitution is a trait of laziness instead of circumstances; if employment is evasive to someone who seeks it, then it's somehow the fault of the seeker because something about them must be undesirable or offensive, regardless of their qualifications to fill a position. Indeed these self-entitled keepers of wealth steadfastly and unashamedly believe that people who occupy the lesser stations of financial achievement are there because of their take on “natural selection”, and they deserve nothing more than what they have, regardless of opportunities denied or conditions external to their control. Interestingly, this is the group of people most likely to regard evolution as a farce.

So now, in an attempt to throw the dwindling middle class a bone in an election year, the Senate majority leader is trying to reintroduce an extension of unemployment insurance, only to learn that the republicans have declared it D.O.A. employing their usual stunts to delay it into oblivion. If there's anything that surprises me about this business of Boehner trying to load up the unemployment insurance extension legislation with neocon social engineering earmarks and cuts in social services in order to pay for it, it's that many in the pundit industry appear to fault Harry Reid for somehow being intransigent in refusing to go along with this latest neocon gambit where it is neither wanted or fiscally responsible. And none of the shrill media honeys on the Sunday circus of right wing talk shows are noticing that job creation in this so-called "recovery" has stalled... which further adds gasoline to this blazing crematorium for the middle class.

And why would that be? How come job growth seems to have abruptly stalled? I suspect that since it's an election year and since the few job creators that remain in this country don't like the current prospects for a turnover in the House come November (given that more and more people are starting to place the blame for this economy squarely on the shoulders of those responsible for it), why not tank the economy some more with a hiring freeze to make Obama look even worse? After all, their business partners in communist countries like China and Vietnam would rather deal with people who tacitly sanction the theft of American jobs and technology instead of those who would try to prevent it.

There's an example of the kind of delight conservatives take in poisoning this country from the inside out: several years ago when- I believe this was during the Clinton administration- an anti-tobacco bill that everybody except southern neocons wanted to pass somehow magically (and rather suspiciously) managed to be defeated by a narrow vote. It's said that Boehner later passed out celebratory cartons of cigarettes to his friends on the floor of the House - donated by the tobacco lobbyists - and essentially thumbing his nose at those who championed the bill and rubbing their noses in the defeat.

Given that virtually everything the conservative movement espouses is based on the fantasies of right wing fanatics, machiavellian theorists, bigots, proponents of 15th century science, Luddites and sooth-sayers with no regard for human nature or reality, perhaps it's time to appeal to their world of revisionist reality: those who are familiar with the fiction of Star Trek lore would understand the implication of Nancy Pelosi taking a page from Boehner's playbook by passing out gifts of Ferenghi tooth sharpeners to her "bipartisan friends" on the right side of the aisle.

Fitting poetry for those who are doing everything they possibly can to kill America from the inside out.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is nonsensical (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pi Li, nextstep, VClib, psyched
    I suspect that since it's an election year and since the few job creators that remain in this country don't like the current prospects for a turnover in the House come November (given that more and more people are starting to place the blame for this economy squarely on the shoulders of those responsible for it), why not tank the economy some more with a hiring freeze to make Obama look even worse?
    Anyone who thinks that business owners make business decisions based on whether they like, or dislike, the occupant of the White House has obviously never run a business.

    I'll tell you why people aren't hiring:  They are not confident that hiring more will make them more money.  That's it.  That's ALWAYS the reason.  They make decisions based on what will be most profitable.  Employees are a risk -- you are committing to an expense, and if you are not completely confident that the additional employee(s) will make you more profitable, then you may not want to take that risk.  If you have confidence that the additional employees will help you make more money, you are more likely to take that risk and hire those additional employees.  

    There may be some -- a few -- exceptions (hiring somebody's nephew) but people make decisions like that based on what makes them more money.  Anybody who makes business decisions based on whether they like, or don't like, a politician won't stay in business very long.  They will lose out to competitors who ARE making business decisions for busines reasons.  

    •  Since when do business owners (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Anakai, Chi, OooSillyMe

      believe they should be completely free of risk?  A condition of 'risk free' is not even possible.

      Business owners act like they're entitled to a risk free environment, gratis of the taxpayers.

      Isn't that why business owners argue that they should be paid so much more than their employees - because the business owners are engaging in risky decision making while employees just show up?

      So what is it?  Do business owners actually engage in risk that should provide a huge premium to them or are they just frozen in their tracks, shaking in fear, because there is too much risk?

      Business owners are a bunch of wussies.

      And what fantasy world are you living in?  There are plenty of business owners who make decisions based upon politics, most recently the businesses who object to ACA.

      The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 02:27:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's their money they are risking. So, yes, THEY (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, VClib

        get to say what level of risk they are comfortable with.  

        Do business owners actually engage in risk that should provide a huge premium to them or are they just frozen in their tracks, shaking in fear, because there is too much risk?
        You have NO IDEA if that is true -- the potential huge premium --  for a specific business.  None.  Zilch. Nada.  Zippo.  It's their business -- their money -- they get to decide if there are potential "huge premiums" for them.  If they think that the potential reward outweighs the risk, they invest -- in new capital, in new employees, whatever.  It's their money so THEY are the ones to evaluate risk and reward, THEY are the ones to evaluate the potential upside, and THEY are the ones who decide how much reward justifies how much risk.

        And people are cutting employees to under 30 hours BECAUSE THE LAW GIVES THEM A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO DO THAT.  Congress set it up that way -- it's a matter of math.  If you work that 30th hour, it makes each of the prior 29 hours more expensive for the employer. That's basic to anyone who's ever run a business. Businesses aren't doing things like that because they "don't like" a law.  They do it because it makes financial sense.  

        •  I would say that this cutback is a (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          poor long-term decision. Even if the short-term incentives are there, it will weaken the organization, creating long-term damage.  The impact on institutional culture and institutional memory is the first thing that comes to mind.  There are plenty of others, as well.

          People doing this are idiots, but that is all about our broken economic philosophies.  

          It gets on my nerves, and you know how I am about my nerves...

          by ciganka on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 07:42:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What a silly comment. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pi Li

            That kind of decision is going to be different for every business, and specific to that particular business.  You can't make that kind of statement about any business without knowing a whole lot of specifics about that particular business (what's its history, what do current revenues look like, what do current expenses look like, what are the projections for that particular business, are there new products, are product lines being discontinued, what do marketing trends look like; how do our expenses per dollar of revenue compare to the industry norm, I could go on and on).  Making that kind of blanket statement that it's always -- or even for most businesses -- a poor long term decision, and that the people doing it are "idiots," just shows your own lack of understanding about what goes into running a business.  

            •  First, I was wrong to flat-out call people idiots. (0+ / 0-)

              However, I still stand by the idea that cutting hours for short-term incentive is often a bad idea in the long run.  

               

              It gets on my nerves, and you know how I am about my nerves...

              by ciganka on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 07:49:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Who ever said business owners expect zero risk? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        Certainly nobody with experience as a person who makes final decisions.

        Business tries to avoid unnecessary risk if the cost of avoiding is not too great.  Profitability when things turn out well enable the business risks turn against it if the turn is not too sever

        If a business person thinks that a change in government will increase risk or lower profitability of new investments, on average, they will reduce new investments.  This is no different than an employee cutting back on spending if she thought her pay had a high risk of being reduced.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 05:05:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh boy, now you made me weigh in. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Anakai, Tonedevil

        Now I will say first off that I am running a small organization of only 10 people.  Next, it is not in the US, but it is in an even more at risk economy.

        Also, of these ten jobs, the top four people all earn the same.  There is a compensation system that is built in to keep the salary structure under control so that there are no run away salaries completely out of line with everyone else's.  

        That said, when I calculate my risk on a decision, I look at the other nine people in the office, because when I roll that dice, I am rolling on their behalf as well.    So this idea that someone owning something should be constantly exposed and at risk is not going to apply in every situation.  

        However, that said, I also understand what you are saying, because our big corporate partners are very careful.  All signs much point to "all for me and all for risk-free", and if there is anyway to put the cost of that risk on another entity: a smaller weaker partner, the government, etc.  it is built into everything.  

        I just want to say that the identity type politics of owner/worker which are usually exploitative, are not in every case.  I identify much more closer with my team that I do with other owner/managers, and I am a much happier person for that.  Also because of that, although none of us have great financial compensation, I have the privilege  of working with some of the most high quality individuals that I have ever known.  

        Just sayin'.

        It gets on my nerves, and you know how I am about my nerves...

        by ciganka on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 04:16:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure wish your kind of management style (0+ / 0-)

          and sense of priorities were still here in America. One local business we had here that used to practice these very ideals was Hewlett-Packard - that is, until it decided to "modernize" itself under Carly Fiorina by breaking itself up and selling itself off to the highest bidders.

          I wish you all the success. Hopefully that success won't destroy your humanity and appreciation for the people who get you there.

          •  Thanks for the wishes. (0+ / 0-)

            It is more like a kind of survival in this environment.  I just keep hoping that something will give, and these practices will be reined in, so that there can be more businesses that have stakes in the community where they work.  

            It seems to be the SMEs that are just taking such a beating in this climate, and sad to say, some of them are turning to the dark side.  

            I so much hope for better days for all of us.  We are all in this together.

            It gets on my nerves, and you know how I am about my nerves...

            by ciganka on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 11:46:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  You hit the nail on the head (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ciganka

    while completely ignoring the context in which I wrote this diary:

    people are cutting employees to under 30 hours BECAUSE THE LAW GIVES THEM A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO DO THAT.  Congress set it up that way
    Kindly note that you correctly observed two things in that statement:

    1. PEOPLE are cutting employees to under 30 hours...

    and why? because:

    2. THE LAW GIVES THEM A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO DO THAT.  Congress set it up that way.

    So you have a supply-side driven government rife with politicians who stand to gain the most from their campaign contributors making laws to de-incentivize demand - side capitalism by allowing people to steal money out of the pockets of workers who could be paying taxes on that income and spending money on goods and services. And what are they doing with that saved revenue? Sitting on it, weighing risk instead of investing in employee production and the betterment of their local economies through demand for products and services.

    Because a law creates a convenient incentive to line one's pockets at the expense of others does not require one to obey it.

    Collis Porter Huntington had a business motto for the shipyard he built along the James River in 1891: "We shall build good ships here: at a profit if we can; at a loss if we must - but always good ships." It wan't a romantic. idealized notion, either: it was a gentleman's way of daring competitors to produce better products than him. He and later his relatives invested in an apprentice program of skill improvement and education for employees; there were health care benefits before insurance companies were a glint in the robber baron's eyes. It was done back then because building and maintaining a stable community was more important than building and maintaining a stable portfolio.

    Instead of being ruled by greed, fear and laws that reward them, it sure would be good to get back to the kind of competition in this country where creating and marketing high quality products, providing a healthy business environment where loyal work ethics and uncompromising skills can flourish and smart investments in employees provided the power to America's competitive engine. I think that those days are long gone, though, probably never to return: greed has been made far too financially attractive in this country.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site