Working in a time-honored corporate media genre (Extra!, 9-10/97, 9-10/05, 7/10), the Washington Post‘s Edward Cody (4/24/11) tells us that Europe just can’t afford its generous social programs:
From blanket health insurance to long vacations and early retirement, the cozy social benefits that have been a way of life in Western Europe since World War II increasingly appear to be luxuries the continent can no longer afford.
Lest you think “appear” provides some wiggle room, Cody makes clear that, no, he’s talking about objective truth here:
In the new reality, workers have been forced to accept salary freezes, decreased hours, postponed retirements and healthcare reductions.
Some people, of course, haven’t gotten the message yet:
Many Europeans, particularly in left-wing political parties and labor unions, have interpreted the new winds as a triumph for ruthless free-market extremists who want to protect private wealth from higher taxes and as an aberration that can be undone by electing governments that are more worker-friendly. But many others, resigned to the new reality of globalization, have come to view the shift as the end of a golden era, perhaps never to be revived.
Note the reoccurrence of that handy word “reality.” Hard to argue with reality, isn’t it?
But let’s give it a try. Cody’s piece is largely about France, a place “emblematic of Europe’s social advances.” In France in 1960–well after World War II–the per capita gross domestic product was $7,482 (in 2000 U.S. dollars). In 2009, it was $22,820–roughly three times as much. The obvious question: Why is a country no longer able to afford the social safety net it had when it was one-third as wealthy? That’s a reality the Washington Post is not interested in exploring.
In psychology, the insistence on maintaining your own version of reality in the face of contradicting facts is known as psychosis.
In the corporate media, it’s known as traditional practice.
Another ‘reality’ that the WaPo might try exploring is the possibility that unfettered ‘free-trade’/globalization is mostly a scam, setup to primarily benefit the wealthy and/or corporations, while hurting governments and workers.
It’s so sad that the Post, the source of journalistic integrity that brought down the Nixon regime, is no pimping for the corporate culture.
In this last “recession”, the 100 largest corporations in the US expanded their cash reserves from $500 billion in 2008 before the crash, to $1.8 trillion last fall. Now, the US and Great Britain giant corporations together have over $3 trillion in cash reserves. They managed this feat at the same time they were spending a fortune telling voters that government had to go on a diet. The diet, apparently, is necessary because being absolutely filthy rich just isn’t quite enough for some
a__h__es, everybody else must be made to suffer. This isn’t just psychosis, its sadism.
The beltway media, as corrupt as ever!
We need to destroy whatever it is that America is trying to use to cut the knees out from under and subvert the rest of the world.
America is not the number one retrograde regressive regime, and we will push this to the rest of the world like the Nazi’s pushed fascism, because we have to – from the corporate side it is war, on people everywhere, and the weapons are hegemony of the elite, that is how we will try to take down Europe, as it was explained in how Iceland was bankrupted in the documentary “inside job”.
America needs to return to being a social democracy, and then the West’s survival may yet mean something.
The simplest solution to and explanation of a problem are often the best: the rich are afraid they may have to pay higher taxes. The media owners, the publishers, the networks, the corporations,
the CEOs are afraid they may have to pay higher taxes. There
are dozens of other ways of saying it. There are dozes of other
reasons that could be cited. But the bottom line is that the
rich are afraid they are going to have to pay higher taxes.
Q.E.D.
Currently, oil subsidies are costing tax payers $4 billion a year.
Why not use that money for disaster relief in the dozen or more
states from Arkansas to Virginia? With gasoline prices now
above $4 a gallon, the oil companies will recoup that $4 billion
in no time!
I’ve decided to resign myself to the reality that we’ve seen the end of the golden era of journalism when you could count on a working stiff like yourself to give it to you straight instead of rambling on like a puppet for the boss.
Actually, Richard, the rich think of any tax upon them as an outrage. They object, as G.K. Chesterton put it, to being governed at all, and taxes, to them, are nothing but government interference.
Tim I never heard anyone say Any tax is an outrage.Or that we want no government.Or that all taxes are government interference.We do believe the fact that the top 20% are in fact supporting a great part of the whole is lunacy.Especially since for their troubles they are daily attacked by the left as not doing their fair share.Strangely Tim most so called Rich are for a flat tax.A tax that would take away all their wiggle room.If they want to enjoy their money -they would be taxed “on their money”.Fair all the way around except…….The government would loose the entire argument that the rich don’t pay enough.They could not isolate them,or use them as a political pawn.And all those yapping at the rich would also be paying at least something.If the government raised taxes- ALL would suffer.You would have that cheering in the streets(for taxing the rich) on left turn to riots might quick.
I do believe the way we collect taxes is unfair.If we choose to do so…we should use my idea.Everyone gets an ID card.Color coded and aligned to your net worth.Poor people go to a hotdog cart and pay…nothing.Middle class pays a buck.Upper middle 20 bucks.Bill gates pays 10 thousand.The tax structure would remain unchanged.the only difference is those rich who we mean to punish would be punished by the hot dog vender….the ice cream man and so on.Class war fare would finally be brought into the open into the streets.Hopefully BRUXes idea of true socialism would transpire.The rich would become so disengaged from the very idea of an upwardly mobile society where success brings rewards instead of open derision- that they would end the effort to achieve anything.We can all join hands in quiet mediocrity where government take care of all of us and sing songs about the campfire.Im not sure where the money will come from.Maybe from the new rich.Those who have guaranteed jobs come what may. Unions and government.
As far as the article above.Anyone and i mean anyone who believes we should emulate Europe cannot add or subtract.
We can always leave it to Michael E to write something completely irrelevant and moronic. You’re a stupid right wing tool Michael and a total embarrassment as a human being.
“Anyone and i mean anyone who believes we should emulate Europe cannot add or subtract.”
Yes, we should not emulate the area in the world that has used such flawed economic model that in the last 50 years they managed to go from complete ruins to equaling or surpassing the global hegemon. All the while maintaining the level of services and social protections that would be a dream come true for 90% of Americans. What they call “austerity” in Europe would be called socialist worker heaven in the states and they are still doing better than the good old USA.
Europe exists because of the United States. Look at the protective umbrella we have provided at untold costs that allowed Europe to do “other things”. That gravy train is over.I love the way the left is in love with Europe…well the old Europe that could afford socialism … right up until the old axiom that sooner or later you run out of other folks money- proved spot on. Now -a -days Europe is moving right. Toward fiscal stability and sanity.
Bob… love that diversity you Dems always practice.”Total embarrassment as a human being”.”Right wing tool”.”Irrelevant,and moronic”.Im laughing my ass off.You voted for Obama didn’t you?Admit it.You actually did.You voted that dip in.You actually pulled that lever and believe you still have a right to claim an ounce of intelligence.Unbelievable
After months of reading through the FAIR blogs I have discovered something; only marginally interesting, but thought I would mention it all the same. Let me say first that I do follow these blogs because the participants are articulate, informed and informative. A worthwhile site over all.
But at this point, I can follow the ‘conversation’ and when I get to the tag: ‘Michael E,’ I can close my eyes, guess what the substance of his response will be, and be right every time. Nothing new, nothing substantial, the same narrow, predictable viewpoint over and over and over again, no matter the topic. Few of you even bother to respond to him, but rather continue the conversation around him. I am mystified as to why he bothers. My guess is, he likes to read his own posts and congratulate himself on saying the same thing for the millionth time and possibly riling someone up enough to address him. This is not mentally healthy behavior. I cannot remember the name of the woman who set his slanted claims straight so many times with documented facts. I learned from her cogent, well researched and sourced responses. But it is clear, Michael E does not learn. He wants to be a lone gunman on a site he has targeted as opposition to the ideology he wishes to serve. Various veiwpoints are useful, but they must have substance, not simple minded invective, to be of value. Leave him be. Just keep talking around him. Insulting him, besides being ugly, is what he wants as it makes him feel noticed and important and inspired to spew more malicious foolishness. And it lowers the level of discourse. Wish him well as a fellow human and leave him alone.
Rm Her name is Helen.I think she is very well meaning.She often throws” so called” well researched facts about.It screams back at me to have a war of “well researched facts”thrown back at her until she and I are having a proxy war of well researched facts, and their authors.Old liberal game.My expert is better than your expert.
Digest it ,and tell me what you think is what i want,and try to give.It is called having an opinion.The silence you see directed at me is usually when I ask a point blank question.Something like”give me the liberal top never go beyond number you would have the top earners pay in fed taxes”.Or “are you a socialist”Tim was honest enough to admit he is. Another kind gentle man informed me that this was a sight of like thinking socialists and I should go elsewhere.
Im surprised that you don’t see what it is I am doing.I am reacting to exactly what it is you have charged me with. The same narrow knee jerk reaction to every subject is what i see.On top of which every subject written about is starting from liberal invective. You started your little speech above by saying people here are articulate informed and informative. How so?I see them as little bobble heads nodding in unison to the massive liberal slant of every article. When I point out there is a different side ladies and gents….they all scurry about to prove the liberal lemming parade. But I cant learn?
Your ending was classic. Yes you were talking about me but it is a liberal learned response. Lets change one word. Move away from personal attack and say what you mean. You are talking about the other 100 million who heartedly disagree with you.I am your proxy….Let me show you what you really meant
“Conservatives cant learn(they are not educated don’t you know like us). They target the opposition to the ideology they serve(mindless idiots like that Sarah Palin). Various viewpoints are useful,but they must have substance ,not simple minded invective,to be of value(And we all no how simple minded conservatives are). Leave them be. Just talk around them(shun them). Insulting them is what they want(because they are all touched). Makes them feel important,and they spew more malicious foolishness(they only feel useful when abused). They lower the level of discourse(Stupid fools). Wish them well and leave them alone.”(Step over them like the insects they are.)
Gosh Rm ….and here I thought liberals exhibited pompous elitist rhetoric far to often for my liking.You really set me straight.
Look you have a sight here where everyone nods the day away on how brilliant Obama is.I ask why(makes me enemy numero uno).You say because he went to ….Harvard.I say- so did i ,and by the way how in the hell did HE get in with his grades.Everyone keeps nodding saying how brilliant Obama is.My own little hell.A moronic circle.
Oh thanx for wishing me well as….a fellow human.I wish you well to. And will give you the respect of discourse. I do Remember and follow the saying by Thomas Carlyle.”Every man is my superior in that I may learn from him”.That includes you too.
Michael, I didnt express a political opinion. Your assumption that because I was critical of your posts means I am a ‘pompous, elitist, moronic, liberal, etc, etc, etc – that is a perfect demonstration of ‘knee jerk.’ Further, you put words in my mouth or otherwise attempted to tell me what I meant, as oppossed to what I said.
Your blanket contempt for all who post here precludes your participating in the conversation in a meaningful way. My point to the others, specifically those who had stooped to insult you, was that such response lowered the level of discourse. Which is what I think you want. Your “own little hell”? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to post here?
I do not subscribe to your black or white, liberal vs conservative worldview. One side is all good, the other is all bad is the basis for childrens’ fairytales, but is not how life in the real world works. And it certainly is not a way to arrive at solutions to real concerns, much less engage in worthwhile dialog. It speaks to the need of some to dominate others, ultimately through coercion. I understand that it can be seductive to imagine that all of the complications and problems in life can be reduced to a simple formula that allows one to feel that they have it all figured out, are on the right side and know who to blame and who the bad guys are, but this simply is not so. And oozing contempt and blazing belligerence until your keyboard disintegrates will not make it so.
I guess what I’d like to suggest to you is that conversation, if that is in fact what you are interested in, works better for all when you are not simply firing at every hat that appears over the hedge. Why would anyone you have dismissed as a ‘bobble head’ think there was any point in conversing with you? Your interest appears to be confined to venting and provoking. Tiresome. And juvenile. Sorry. Even Harvard men can show their asses under the guise of open discussion. It is your manner, not your views, (which are commonplace and well represented in the media and so not likely to come as any surprise to the posters here) that undermines your efforts.
OK, that said, let me have it with both barrels and lets have done.
Well met and well said. You are probably correct.My nature is not to look down on anyone.It is not really in my DNA. Certainly not in my upbringing. Contempt?Wow Mom and Dad would of been very unhappy with me if I was seen in that way.I guess In getting under my skin with what I consider bullying/knee jerk reactions…..I suppose I have tended to come off as no better (as I defend the other side of the coin).So I will attempt to cool my Jets. Reboot as it were.Of course we must have a more civil discourse.There is much to do.Much we agree on.So you seem a good person.I will take a step back and a few breaths before I speak…OK?
I read with great interest that I give a commonplace viewpoint. Hate to be predictable.