Thursday, December 05, 2013
Political Mayhem Thursday: Feed the Hungry
As the nation continues its recovery from a deep recession caused by reckless real estate investments (by home buyers, lenders, and derivatives traders), it is increasingly clear that the wealthy are recovering while the poor and middle class are not. Stock prices are high, but wages are not.
In the midst of this, Congress has cut food stamps, and is poised to cut more.
I'm baffled by this. Given our continued support of agri-businesses through enormous subsidies, why is it we treat poor people different than those corporations, even within the context of a single farm bill? If the principle food-stamp-cutters stand on is "self sufficiency," then why doesn't that principle apply to large corporations? Shouldn't we make them do without the hand-outs of taxpayer money?
To apply a harsh principle to the poor but not to the rich and to corporations makes sense only if my dad is right-- that our politics are now badly skewed by the money spent on political campaigns by corporations. Increasingly, I am convinced that he is right.
Comments:
<< Home
We listened to a interview with Peter Schweizer yesterday on the Diane Rehm Show about his new book "Extortion". Talks about the money in politics. Made me sick to my stomach. I don't think your Dad needs to read this book as he already has a grasp of this.
The problem goes back to the idea that corporations are "people" with constitutional rights. Imagine if corporations were subject to the same bankruptcy laws as individuals. Outta business in no time at all.
Corporations should not have rights to donate to politicians, etc.
Corporations should not have rights to donate to politicians, etc.
# posted by 
: 12:47 PM
: 12:47 PM
Mark - I bought your Dad's book, but not the one you seem to be referencing. Is Economics According to John Osler for sale too or does it require I spend several days sitting in their living room ,sipping wine and listening to your Dad? Either works for me.
With regard to the topic of food and hunger. If we, as a government, are going to subsidize farms and big agriculture (industry) then perhaps there should be some stipulations on them providing food for the hungry. Or putting defined amounts of money into feeding the hungry in America.
With regard to Mr. Schweizer - We realize he is a Reagan Republican (his own words) but when he talked about how the money works in Washington - regardless of party, we really were disturbed. Especially the tax free funds available for Congress-people from some form of PAC.
With regard to the topic of food and hunger. If we, as a government, are going to subsidize farms and big agriculture (industry) then perhaps there should be some stipulations on them providing food for the hungry. Or putting defined amounts of money into feeding the hungry in America.
With regard to Mr. Schweizer - We realize he is a Reagan Republican (his own words) but when he talked about how the money works in Washington - regardless of party, we really were disturbed. Especially the tax free funds available for Congress-people from some form of PAC.
.... and Waco Friend - I agree. Corporations are not people and shouldn't have the rights afforded to us.
I heard an interesting idea the other day. What if the government provided earmarked funds to small businesses, with the caveat that you have to create a position and pay a salary with those funds? It might take a whole new administrative structure to make it work efficiently, but I thought it was a pretty good germ of an idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home
