The electeds in office do not represent homeless, half of who are veterans. The electeds, by their sociopathy, represent only corporatist interests who profiteer from the working class, reaping trillions of dollars from war, Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Oil and finance using Extinction protocols to kill, to make suffering, to make sick and sicker, to make homeless. The electeds do not represent 99% plus of the population. We are pawns in their money game. Through misappropriation of resources as corporatist welfare to their corporate masters, the elected political maintains the fascist status quo by criminally self-enriching themselves by their legislative-writing lobbyist overlords.
My campaign for State Senate calls for a massive appropriation of the tax dollar to regulate and tax every corporate entity to frugally adapt to a planet engulfed in an ever amplifying downward spiral of catastrophe in this, the Sixth Great Extinction, of this the Anthropogenic Era. Spending, expenditure, partnerning, investments immediately will focus on free pre-K through post-doctorate education, for localized food and water security, for affordable housing, resilient and sustainable community-based economics and material production, for local watershed revitalization, for wholistic, acute, chronic, preventative single payer, universal, quality healthcare for all, for a steady-state green jobs new deal economy.
But as the New York Times economic columnist Paul Krugman has repeatedly pointed out, welfare entitlements, including the food debit card, are not only good for families; they are also good for the economy. People who receive such help spend the money immediately. Single mothers hold down multiple jobs at minimum wages to keep their family together. The debit card allows them to go shopping and to buy needed groceries. Such entitlements boost spending and the economy, rather than depleting it.
Despite these arguments, the cuts have already begun. On November 1, 2013, Congress cutnearly $5 billion from SNAP and Republicans now want to cut another $40 billion dollars. The stalemate has resulted in the failure of Congress to pass the farm bill, which provides SNAP subsidies to farms, mostly of which are large agricultural corporations.
Meanwhile, poverty grows, the stock market zooms to new heights, the wealth of the one percent increases, and corporate executives continue to get tax exemptions for business entertainment expenses, which allow corporations to deduct 50 percent of these costs from their annual taxes.
These are the same criticisms people have been making, with growing clamor, since the Fed initiated its QE spending in 2010. Since the financial crash, both the Fed and Bank of England have been running these stimulus programs — a “money for nothing” technique of buying bonds from toxic banks. As Dyson mentions, the U.K. has created an extra £375 billion for big banks through the spending.
Meanwhile, Professor David McNally of York University Toronto calculates the Fed has pumped an equivalent amount, $600 billion, into Wall Street banks in the course of QE1, QE2 and QE3. He asserts this “hot money” is funding speculators to buy currencies, commodities and assets with the result that it’s driving up currencies such as Brazil’s real, funding lands grabs across Africa and Asia, and making food prices soar.
Sam Bashor delivers holiday care packages to homeless men and women on an episode of “Random Acts,” a show based on the simple idea that small acts of humanity can make the world a better place.
Instead of calculating carbon footprints, this new measurement collects all the resources a country uses–even if they’re imported from abroad. The results? Wealthy countries that seemed to be slowing their environmental impact are actually as bad as ever.
The researchers made a point to include the true resources that go into all of the goods that a country imports. That means not only the resources that make it into a finished product, but also the materials–from biomass to metal ores to fossil fuels–that go into enabling the complicated web of global trade. “It’s very similar to a carbon footprint,” says Tommy Wiedmann, the study’s lead author. “It’s exactly the same principle.”
“As an example you might think of Japan exporting cars to the U.S.,” Wiedmann explains to Co.Exist. The existing indicator measures consumption in terms of trade statistics, and trade statistics show that the U.S. consumes a certain tonnage of cars per year. “But further upstream in the production processes, somewhere in Japan or in another country there would be mining of iron ore to produce steel,” Wiedmann says. “Maybe you get one ton of steel out of 1,000 tons of iron ore, and this amount of material of iron ore is actually not recorded in trade statistics.”
They learned that a whopping two-fifths of all global raw materials were extracted for the purpose of exporting goods in 2008. Overlooking figures like this has allowed countries that are huge importers to seem like they’ve slowed their growing environmental footprints.
In the new rankings, China’s material footprint is the highest–twice as large as the U.S., which is in second place. Much of China’s resource consumption is linked to construction materials. But taking into account population size, Australia has the highest material footprint. Its per-person material footprint, at 35 tons a person, is more than double the average developing world nation. India’s is at the lower end at 3.7 tons per person. South Africa is the only country that has demonstrated “absolute” decoupling.
The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It’s a juvenile notion and it’s still being argued in my country passionately and we’re going down the tubes. And it terrifies me because I’m astonished at how comfortable we are in absolving ourselves of what is basically a moral choice. Are we all in this together or are we all not?