Tag Archives: super-rich

Eddie Munster vants to suck our blood

Putting yourself in the public spotlight is risky. You might succeed spectacularly. Or you might have Jon Stewart remarking of you on his show that he didn’t know that “Eddie Munster grew up to be a J.C. Penney catalog model.”

Indeed, Repugnican Tea Party U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, with his widow’s peak, indeed resembles the little Munster —

179831_10150144445806145_677676144_8308412_2333514_n

— which at least one individual pointed out as early as January.

But worse than being compared to Eddie Munster would be being compared to vampiress Sarah Palin, and I have the feeling that Paul Ryan is going the way of Sarah Palin: an individual in his or her 40s with presidential aspirations who isn’t all that bad on the eye but whose wingnutty policies are for shit and who just isn’t ready for political prime time.

As I have noted, very apparently the Repugnican Tea Party thought that they could put Paul Ryan’s pretty face on their wet dream of privatizing (and thus destroying) Medicare and ensuring that the rich and the super-rich never pay their fair share of taxes again — and that Paul Ryan alone was enough lipstick to put on that monster pig.

But thus far, the majority of Americans apparently would prefer to keep Medicare intact and to make the rich and the super-rich pay up rather than to gush all over Paul “He Works Out, You Know!” Ryan.

But Rep. Ryan apparently thinks that he’s some hot shit, taking on the president.

In case Ryan didn’t notice, his Gov. Scott “Dead Man” Walker-like tactics aren’t going over very well in his own home state right now, so why does he believe he has a strong political base from which to take on Barack Obama?

The uber-cocky Ryan has accused Obama of being a “campaigner-in-chief” for publicly having taken exception to Ryan’s plan to destroy Medicare and to make the rich richer, and indeed, Ryan is brazenly denouncing everyone who doesn’t embrace his so-called “path to prosperity” that gives the rich and the super-rich even more tax breaks while soaking the working class, the middle class and the poor even more than they have been soaked over the past several decades. (So it is a “path to prosperity” — just not our prosperity!)

And it’s ludicrous to hear Ryan accuse Obama of being political, when of course Ryan is being at least as political, and, as they are both politicians engaging in politics, of course they’re being political. (Of course, the charge that the other side is being “political” isn’t meant to denote that the other side is engaged in the struggle for power, which is the very definition of engaging in politics, but is meant to connote that the other side is being unreasonable, that of course the other side would agree with your very reasonable proposal(s) if he or she would just be reasonable instead of “playing politics.”)

On the heels of calling Obama political (in a bad way), Paul “I’m Rubber and You’re Glue” Ryan announced that Obama’s denunciation of his plan to destroy Medicare and further enrich the rich has only strengthened the Repugnican Tea Party’s support of Ryan’s plan in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Oh, please. The stupid white men who comprise the majority of the Repugnican Tea Party traitors in the House of Representatives support Paul Ryan over Barack Obama? Shocker!

Paul Ryan’s idea of destroying Medicare and enriching the rich isn’t “bold” or the like. It’s a colossally shitty idea is what it is. Not only is it horrible public policy (and, I will add, anti-Christian) to allow the wealth care profiteers to shamelessly profit even further from Americans’ pain and suffering via the bloated wealth care-industrial complex, but to attack Medicare is as politically smart as it was for George W. Bush to attack Social Security.

Nor is it OK to assure current oldsters that they’ll be OK, but that the rest of us are fucked where Medicare and/or Social Security is/are concerned. I’m 43 years old and I’ve been paying into Social Security and Medicare since my teens, and I want both benefits, fuck you very much, Mr. Ryan; you’re not going to fuck me up the ass — no matter how much you look like a J.C. Penney catalog model.

Cutting the bloated-beyond-belief budget of the military-industrial complex and making the rich and the super-rich pay their fair share of taxes, as I have noted, will keep afloat Medicare, Social Security and other government programs that benefit the majority of the American people instead of further enrich the rich.

So of course Ryan’s “path to prosperity” — his own prosperity and that of his right-wing ilk, not yours and mine — does not include cutting the “defense” budget or making the rich and the super-rich pay their fair share of taxes.

Which demonstrates that he’s not serious about resolving the federal budget deficit. He’s serious about making the rich richer and the poor poorer. He’s a radical-right-wing ideologue, not a problem solver, especially since his proposed “solutions” would make the problems worse, not better.

Unfortunately, Ryan seems to represent a reliably red congressional district. He won his seven two-year House terms with an average of 64 percent of the vote, so he probably would be very difficult to unseat, even in Wisconsin, in which the Repugnican Tea Party is under fire right now.

However, Ryan’s deceptively titled “path to prosperity” can be relegated to the dustbin of U.S. history, where it belongs, and hopefully, he’ll never rise any higher than the U.S. House of Representatives, where he essentially is just a saner-seeming version of Michele Bachmann.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Social Darwinism does NOT apply to the poor CHILDREN among us

FILE - In a Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009 file photo, S.C. Lt. Gov.Andre ...

Associated Press photo

Repugnican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer apparently is a believer in eugenics for the poor among us. You know, just like Jesus was. Jesus always said about the poor: “You gotta nip ’em in the bud!” (Look it up. I’m sure it’s in there somewhere...)

Memo to Repugnican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer: Zac Efron wants his face back.

Second memo to Repugnican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer: WTF?

No, really. Everyone is focusing on your recently having compared the poor to “stray animals” that, if we feed them, only “breed.” That kind of talk from a Repugnican doesn’t shock me. It’s from the Nazi playbook: First relegate a group of human beings to subhuman status, and then you can justify oppressing them.

And I myself believe that we have an overpopulation problem. However, I don’t single out any certain class of human beings for extinction by starvation, like you do. Not even the Repugnicans do I single out for such treatment, although I’m confident that the species and the planet — and hell, the universe — would be much better off without them.

What really gets me, Loooootenant, is your apparent “logic” that poor children have lower academic performance because they get free or reduced-cost meals at school.

You said this:

“I can show you a bar graph where the free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina. You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I’ll show you the worst test scores, folks. It’s there, period.”

Unless I cannot understand simple English, Zac, your “argument” seems to be that if we give schoolkids free or reduced lunches, their test scores will go down. Don’t feed ’em, and their test scores will go up! Duh! It’s a no-brainer! Gotta make those lazy kids work for it! Kids these days! They have no work ethic! They think there’s such a thing as a free lunch!

This is the comment of yours, Zac, that is getting people riled up:

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem. If you give an animal or a person ample food supply, they will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that….”

But I find your comment apparently correlating the availability of free or reduced-cost school lunches to low school test scores to be even more ludicrous.

To be fair, and not to be a hypocrite, I don’t give the homeless adults in my neighborhood any money because I know — I know — that they’ll only use it for alcohol or cigarettes or drugs. I even have instructed people visiting me in my ’hood not to “feed the bears.”

Truth be told, I don’t want alcoholic or junkie homeless people in my ’hood. And by giving them even pocket change I don’t want to give them incentive to stay in my ’hood and continue to panhandle.

I do blame their lot largely for the fact that our tax dollars go to human greed — to such traitors as the war profiteers like Dick Cheney’s Halliburton — instead of to human needs. I’ve lived where I live since 2001, and every year that the unelected BushCheneyCorp was in office, the numbers of homeless people I’ve seen in my neighborhood climbed annually.

Still, these homeless people — like the one alcoholic guy who kept sleeping on my porch (thanks, BushCheneyCorp!) — can be problematic, and no, truthfully, I don’t want them in my neighborhood; what I want is for my tax dollars to go toward helping them instead of to bogus wars for the military-industrial complex. 

But these homeless people are adults.

You, Lt. Gov. Efron, are against aiding poor children. Children.

No matter how good a child’s parent or parents may or may not be, you don’t punish the child for the child’s parent(s).

Zac, I understand your Repugnicans’ love of social Darwinism. You don’t want the masses to correctly conclude that it is because of the greed of the rich and the super-rich and the exploitation of the working class and the poor by the rich and the super-rich that we have so many poor people in the United States of America.

The rich and the super-rich fear an uprising of the have-nots. (They look at places like Venezuela, which has had a real revolution, with sheer terror.) Therefore, the rich and the super-rich blame the poor for being poor.

And they pay their spokesnakes, such as Glenn Asscrack and Rush Blowhard and Sarah Palin-Quayle, to put the message out there that it’s the poor people’s own damned fault that they’re poor. Even the poor children, too, according to you, Zac.

Lt. Gov. Efron, to clarify: Children don’t do poorly in school because they get free or reduced-cost lunches, if that is the point that you were trying to make. They tend to do poorly in school if they come from poverty-striken households, however. Their parents may not have had the education to be able to help their children very much, and their parents may not be able to afford things like books or other educational materials for the home. Working single parents may have little time and energy with which to help their children with school. 

Our mission — as Americans and as Christians, if we call ourselves Christians — is to help poor children, not to deny them free or reduced-cost school lunches, a la Ebenezer Scrooge.  

To suggest otherwise is unAmerican and unChristian.

I wholeheartedly support birth control. Abstinence clearly isn’t doing the trick. We get all of these immaculate conceptions even with abstinence. As I said, we need to reduce our population (by attrition; down, boy!). I’ve even used the term “breeder” myself to describe someone who irresponsibly brings a child into this already-overpopulated world.

But I don’t discriminate based upon socioeconomic class. Everyone needs to think twice about reproducing these days. Everyone.

But those children who already are here: We need to take care of them. Regardless of how we might judge their parents.

Only a Repugnican would assert otherwise.

I hope that your political career is over, Zac. Really, you deserve it.

P.S. The Associated Press notes that Bauer, age 40, was “a child of divorce who benefited from free [school] lunches himself.” That’s precious.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Keep wanting that revolution

Will the American poor ever go after the American rich’s riches? Uh, no, because the rich own a vast propaganda machine (the flagship of which is Fox “News”) that has convinced the poor that the redistribution of wealth is a bad thing for them.

Lefty editorial cartoonist and columnist Ted Rall concludes his current column:

…What happens next, I think, is that people will do what large numbers of people always do when they need money and food but can’t find a job: They will start to think about the rich, who still have all the wealth they accumulated while money was still circulating. And they will take it from them.

It might be the easy way, through liberal-style income redistribution. Or it might be the hard way. Either way, it goes against the laws of nature to expect starving people to allow a few individuals to sit on vast aggregations of wealth….

With the economic distress we’re likely to see in the coming year or two or three, revolution will become increasingly likely unless money starts coursing through the nation’s economic veins, and soon.

Will it be a soft revolution of government-mandated wealth distribution through radical changes in the tax structure and the construction of a European-style safety net, as master reformer FDR presided over when he saved capitalism from itself?

Or will the coming revolution be something harder and bloodier, like the socioeconomic collapse that destroyed Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union?

To a great extent, what happens next will depend on how Barack Obama proceeds in his first weeks as president.

Damn — do even I write that apocalyptically?

Don’t get me wrong; I do wish for another American revolution. But I don’t have my hopes up that fat-assed Americans will put down their Big Gulps and get out of their lard-hauling scooters long enough to, um, revolt. (Oh, they’re revolting, all right, but in a different sense of the term…)

I mean, a pattern emerges: A man named George Bush takes Oval Office and wrecks the economy; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Then a Democrat takes the helm and the economy recovers; there is (relative) prosperity, under which Americans grow fat and lazy. Then, because Americans are fat and lazy and can’t be bothered with something like preventing the utter destruction of their democracy, another man named George Bush steals office and wrecks the economy, just like his fucking father did. Then another Democrat takes the helm. Presumably the economy will recover and even eventually blossom under President Barack Obama and Americans will become even fatter and lazier.

But after President Obama will Americans be fucking stupid enough to put another Bush into the White House, as Grandpappy George Bush suggests they should, in his son Jeb? (Will Americans perhaps even allow Jeb Bush to steal the White House like his brother did?)

I mean, aren’t we being played? A Repugnican president (usually with the surname of Bush) brings the nation to the brink of utter ruin and then a Democrat fixes things, only to have the whole cycle repeat itself?

Revolution?

I’m not going to buy a pitchfork or a torch just yet.

Obama’s numbers in the public opinion polls are pretty fucking good. To a solid majority of Americans, Obama is fucking Superman. Or at least Batman (and, as Catwoman noted in the second Tim Burton “Batman” movie, Americans are always waiting around for some hero to save them from their own fucking messes).

A Gallup poll taken last month found that 32 percent of Americans listed Barack Obama as their most admired man living today anywhere in the world. George W. Bush came in a distant second place at only 5 percent. (John McCainosaurus? He came in third place, with only 3 percent. I’m surprised that he did as well as he did on Nov. 4…)

Polls taken last month found that at least 75 percent of Americans approve of the job that Obama is doing thus far in his transition to the White House.

Obama’s shit doesn’t stink — at least right now. He’s riding high.

Americans seem to fully expect Obama to save them.

As long as things don’t get much, much worse than they are now, I don’t see the forcible redistribution of wealth that the Repugnican plutocrats so fear.

The tagline of Rall’s current column reads: “There’s Plenty of Money Around. Let’s Take It.” That’s my dream (and apparently Rall’s, t0o) and a plutocrat’s nightmare, but the Repugnicans, with their incessant propaganda campaigns, have convinced enough stupid poor people that the redistribution of wealth somehow is a bad thing for them — “socialism” and “Communism,” you know — that the rich and the super-rich and the super-fucking-rich are pretty safe, I think, atop their mountains of cash that they stole from the rest of us.

And just enough Americans have bought Barack Obama’s promises of “hope” and “change” — last month 63 percent of Americans polled said that they feel “hopeful” for 2009, while only 35 percent said “fearful” — that I don’t see that revolution coming any day soon.

When things are this shitty, things have to improve only a little for people to think that things have turned around again, even though the bar keeps getting lower and lower and lower. 

Yeah — we’re being played…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized