http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s&feature=player_detailpage
"Hey you :)
You've heard "This Land is My Land" before, but it is used mostly as a mindless patriotic song because people only use the first few parts of the song- leaving the part out about private property. Woodie Guthrie wrote this as an anthem of the country literally belonging to the people at a time when the New Deal was being passed and the American working class was more organized, political, and angry then they have ever been since. I think I thought of it because of when we talk about arguments being wrapped in the American flag, though this usually happens the opposite with this song- they use his loving description of the song while obscuring its use as a socialist rally song lol Just thought you'd find it interesting that such a popular song used in patriotic ways had its origins in leftist political struggles in the 1930s lol"
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
On Taxing the Wealthy
It’s being called “class warfare”, President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on America’s wealthy. “Warfare” is a pretty strong word, for a tax increase of only four percent. When I think warfare, I think violence, battlefields and blood, not millionaires with chintzy mansions in the hills, wearing $1,000 suits and paying a measly four-percent more in taxes.
This whole “class warfare” hysteria, is just another example of sensationalism in the media. It’s purpose is to increase ratings, while at the same time persuading the viewer to the networks own political viewpoint.
39.6% is not a large increase, and in fact is not unprecedented. It’s exactly the rate America’s wealthy paid under the Clinton Administration, under which America experienced a large amount of economic growth (Johnson, D).
Historically, America’s wealthy have always paid an even greater amount in taxes. The tax rate on America’s wealthy was 90% under Presidents FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and the beginning of the Kennedy years. These were the years that America built it’s middle class. Even President Ronald Reagan, who was a great advocator of Trickle-down, taxed the rich at 50%, although this was a lower percentage than what it had been previously (Blue Prevails).
Since the Bush tax cuts, our economy hasn’t been doing so good. I tend to feel, that this is not a coincidence. Trickle-down economics is a nice theory, but it is only a theory and has not had very much success in practice.
A more valid economic theory would be Keynesian. FDR used Keynes theory in his New Deal program, which helped the United States recover from the Great Depression. Keynesian economics is the idea that enough spending can get an economic system going again. It makes sense to me! Anyone in business will tell you, you have to spend money to make money. Keynesian has been proven to work, while trickle-down has not (Whittie, Amy L.).
Further more, with Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the wealthy, he also plans to cut taxes on 95% of working Americans. It seems to make a lot more sense to do something that will benefit 95%, rather than 1%. America’s middle class definitely needs the help more than millionaires. But Fox News and other sensationalist news sources, sometimes forget to mention these things (Blue Prevails).
Cutting taxes on working Americans will help the economy. Everyday Americans will be spending more, and smaller businesses will flourish. As opposed to multi-million dollar corporations, who already have most of their labor overseas anyway.
America’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, is only able to sell their merchandise at such a low price, because they outsource to low-wage factories overseas ( Freeman, Richard and Arthur Ticknor). They have thousands of factories in countries other than the United States, including Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nicaragua, and Swaziland (Greenhouse, S.) They have been using labor overseas for years, and it has worked out for them. They certainly aren’t going to stop and start producing here in the U.S, due to tax cuts. And Wal-Mart is typical of many multi-million dollar corporations in our country. None of them stopped using overseas labor, or created jobs for Americans, after the Bush tax cuts. So, the argument that cutting taxes on the rich produces more jobs, would seem to be false.
The fact is, whenever top taxes are raised our economy grows. Vice Versa when taxes are cut the economy usually declines. Raising top taxes provides our government with the revenue it needs, to improve schools and educate our country’s youth, for military spending and our country’s defense, for maintaining a strong middle class, and so much more! It isn’t class warfare, it’s logic! And it will greatly benefit a large majority of the American people.
The GOP can keep yelling about trickle-down, but the way I see it; It’s much better to do something that will benefit all Americans, than to do something that will only benefit about 1% of Americans. And aren’t we all in this together? We are after all The United States of America.
This whole “class warfare” hysteria, is just another example of sensationalism in the media. It’s purpose is to increase ratings, while at the same time persuading the viewer to the networks own political viewpoint.
39.6% is not a large increase, and in fact is not unprecedented. It’s exactly the rate America’s wealthy paid under the Clinton Administration, under which America experienced a large amount of economic growth (Johnson, D).
Historically, America’s wealthy have always paid an even greater amount in taxes. The tax rate on America’s wealthy was 90% under Presidents FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and the beginning of the Kennedy years. These were the years that America built it’s middle class. Even President Ronald Reagan, who was a great advocator of Trickle-down, taxed the rich at 50%, although this was a lower percentage than what it had been previously (Blue Prevails).
Since the Bush tax cuts, our economy hasn’t been doing so good. I tend to feel, that this is not a coincidence. Trickle-down economics is a nice theory, but it is only a theory and has not had very much success in practice.
A more valid economic theory would be Keynesian. FDR used Keynes theory in his New Deal program, which helped the United States recover from the Great Depression. Keynesian economics is the idea that enough spending can get an economic system going again. It makes sense to me! Anyone in business will tell you, you have to spend money to make money. Keynesian has been proven to work, while trickle-down has not (Whittie, Amy L.).
Further more, with Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the wealthy, he also plans to cut taxes on 95% of working Americans. It seems to make a lot more sense to do something that will benefit 95%, rather than 1%. America’s middle class definitely needs the help more than millionaires. But Fox News and other sensationalist news sources, sometimes forget to mention these things (Blue Prevails).
Cutting taxes on working Americans will help the economy. Everyday Americans will be spending more, and smaller businesses will flourish. As opposed to multi-million dollar corporations, who already have most of their labor overseas anyway.
America’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, is only able to sell their merchandise at such a low price, because they outsource to low-wage factories overseas ( Freeman, Richard and Arthur Ticknor). They have thousands of factories in countries other than the United States, including Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nicaragua, and Swaziland (Greenhouse, S.) They have been using labor overseas for years, and it has worked out for them. They certainly aren’t going to stop and start producing here in the U.S, due to tax cuts. And Wal-Mart is typical of many multi-million dollar corporations in our country. None of them stopped using overseas labor, or created jobs for Americans, after the Bush tax cuts. So, the argument that cutting taxes on the rich produces more jobs, would seem to be false.
The fact is, whenever top taxes are raised our economy grows. Vice Versa when taxes are cut the economy usually declines. Raising top taxes provides our government with the revenue it needs, to improve schools and educate our country’s youth, for military spending and our country’s defense, for maintaining a strong middle class, and so much more! It isn’t class warfare, it’s logic! And it will greatly benefit a large majority of the American people.
The GOP can keep yelling about trickle-down, but the way I see it; It’s much better to do something that will benefit all Americans, than to do something that will only benefit about 1% of Americans. And aren’t we all in this together? We are after all The United States of America.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Our First Amedment Right to Protest and the Occupy Wall Street Movement
The Constitution of The United States is a revered and respected document. It is the foundation of our great country, and no single document is more important to America and the preservation of our democracy. We are a government of the People. We are a country of self-government. It began with the Mayflower Contract signed in 1602 and continues to this very day ( Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 3).
The phrase “We the People” ,the very first words in the preamble of our Constitution, summarize what America is all about (Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 48).
Being a government of, for, and by the people, our Constitution guarantees American citizens certain rights. The Bill of Rights lists these rights, guaranteed to all American citizens, and constitutionally protected (Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 53). It is said these rights cannot be taken away. But unfortunately this is not always the case
The First Amendment guarantees a number of rights and freedoms to American citizens. It is written as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 53).”
The First Amendment right to protest has been exercised frequently by the American people, and historically has had a huge impact on the formation of public policy; but it is the right that is protected least often.
The right to protest is infringed upon more often than any other First Amendment Right. We, as a country, can’t imagine our freedom of speech or religion being taken away from us. For this, we see America as better than some other countries, where citizens do not have these rights. And yet when it comes to the Right to Protest, our government reacts in a very similar way to these countries we hold ourselves to be better than, with police brutality, mass arrests, and every attempt to stifle the voices of the dissenting (“Civil Disobedience”).
During the Civil Rights movement, Dr. Martin Luther King was jailed several times for leading peaceful marches, boycotts, and sit-ins. There were also beatings, mass arrests and some demonstrators were even killed (“Civil Disobedience“).
The Anti-Vietnam War Movement led massive demonstrations on college campus’ around the country and in 1970, four people were killed by the Ohio National Guard at Kent State University (“Anti-Vietnam War Movement”)
The Right to Protest would seem to be our least popular First Amendment Right. This is no different in the case of the recent ever-spreading Occupy Wall Street movement.
It began with an email sent from Adbusters magazine. They called for a revolution and set a date September 17th. They began meeting and planning in August. But when the question was put forth “What is our one demand?” an answer could not be found. It was decided there would be no demands, simply a movement, one that embodied the frustration of the American people and calling for radical change (Schneider).
When September 17th came around, close to 2,000 people showed up. It was not the 20,000 people that Adbusters had originally hoped for, but it was a beginning. The movement soon spread to other large cities: Occupy Boston, Occupy Oakland, Occupy Newark and so on (Schneider).
The protestors are a diverse group ranging from Socialist and Anarchists, to War Veterans, Labor Unions, Student Clubs, and just plain dissatisfied Americans. They are not united by any theme, political ideology, or demands, but are unanimous in their dissatisfaction at the direction our country has taken. They are unhappy with Wall Street and what they feel it represents “The stranglehold on American politics and society by the interests of a wealthy few, a government by the corporations and apparently for them (Schneider)”.
Lucy Kafanov, Russia Today, Producer and Studio Anchor says:
“It’s not so much about the protests as the underlying economic situations that’s leading to the conditions encouraging people to take to the streets….They feel like the economic system no longer represents them and many here just don’t feel like it’s a democracy, like it’s the kind of country that they thought that they were originally living in. People are trying to take a stand for what they feel is right (“Occupy Boston”).
On my own visit to the Occupy Boston site, I too got a general sense of frustration. People stood in the rain holding signs. Signs said things such as “The beginning is near”, “Our government is going to fail”, “I served eight years in the USMC to protect people’s rights, NOT bank rights”, and of course “We are the 99%”. One man stood on the corner wearing a suit and tie, holding a briefcase and a sign that said “Corporations are people too”.
The camp seemed forlorn and distant. Rain poured on the protestors and Boston police stood by keeping a close eye on the situation. I walked past groups of protestors who stared back despondently, and none of them made any effort to talk to me. But when I did approach a group with questions, their eyes burned bright and excitement grew. They care about what they are doing, and while a feeling of frustration and hopelessness pervades the campsite, it can’t compare to the passion they have for their cause.
“I’m out here because I want to make a difference” one protestor gushed. “You know we are the 99 percent.”
I asked her why she thought so many people were opposed to their cause and why the American people even allow such massive tax cuts on the wealthy.
Her reply was “I think part of it is that people just don’t want to get involved. They sit on their couches watching Dancing with the Stars and not really paying attention to what’s going on…A lot of it is the media. The people with the money are the one’s who have the voice…We could just cut defense spending. So much is spent on the military. And these tax cuts aren’t going to create jobs. Right now Corporations are hoarding their money. That has to stop! Not just for my generation but for yours. You didn’t ask for this! That’s why we’re standing out here in solidarity. You know my kids say I’m a Hippie..(Anonymous)”
“Yes!” her friend interjects. “But the Hippies were right!(Anonymous)”
The overall consensus is that the direction America is taking is not a good one. The Occupy movement is about changing that direction. They are exercising their first amendment right to protest. Exercising that right has led them to be beaten, pepper-sprayed, shot at, arrested, and least of all their permit renewals denied.
Students at the University of California were peacefully sitting in a line on a sidewalk when police closed in. The students were pepper-sprayed and paint ball guns were pointed directly at their faces as they were brutally shot at (“Occupy Maced”).
Another young college girl, Chelsea Elliot was also pepper-sprayed, simply for being there. She was standing on the sidewalk and didn’t even know it was coming until she was pepper-sprayed by NYPD, with absolutely no provocation on her part (“Chelsea Elliot”).
The worst has been seen in Oakland. Occupiers have been mercilessly beaten, tear-gassed, and even shot at. Police raided their campsite, set off tear-gas and fired into the crowd of unarmed protestors. Many an American citizen, exercising their first amendment rights, were injured (“Shots Fired at ‘Occupy Oakland’ Protest”).
A lot of this brutality is not taken seriously, probably because the of the unpopularity of the movement among mainstream America. A lot of it is excused because the protestors are, technically, breaking the law.
But in addition to our first amendment right to peaceably assemble, there is our fifth amendment right to not be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 53)“. Brutal beatings and being shot at and pepper-sprayed could be construed as a loss of liberty, and in worst case scenarios could lead to a loss of life. When protestors tents are torn down, that would be a loss of property. As we know, there was no due process of law, simply police officers enraged at what this protest represents.
Here in America, this may not be taken seriously, but the rest of the world is disappointed in us.
A Russian news anchor says in a broadcast:
“More than 4,000 peaceful protestors have been arrested nationwide in the last two months. Any other country doing that would be internationally reprimanded for violating human rights. But ironically that doesn’t seem to be the case when it comes to the United States, a country that preaches freedom of expression (“Occupy Maced”).”
Police brutality is a recurring theme when it comes to civil disobedience. Civil disobedience, or refusing to obey a law or follow a policy believed to be wrong truly is an American tradition. It is directly related to the American idea of Popular sovereignty. This means that the government’s power is based on the consent of the people and that if the majority of people are unhappy with the government, then it must change(Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 4).
Without civil disobedience our country would be a very different place today. Civil disobedience was practiced by Quakers, suffragists, feminists, adherents of prohibition, pacifists and other resistors of war, civil rights groups, supporters of the disabled, and a wide array of other groups (“Civil Disobedience”).
Without Civil disobedience we may not even have an America. The founding fathers had to break many laws in the formation of our nation, and the Boston Tea Party of 1773 is our country’s most celebrated example of the destruction of private property and civil disobedience (Brydges).
To question, speak up, break rules, and even to revolt, truly is American. Had no one ever done these things, we would still be a colony of Great Britain. Women would not have the right to vote. Schools would still be segregated. In short, protest and civil disobedience are necessary and important aspects of a functioning democracy. It is a way for the people to make themselves heard and keep the government in check. It is one of our rights as citizens. Our First Amendment rights must be protected. When the Constitution says “Congress shall create no law..” it doesn’t mean no law except for the law that you need a permit. When it says “the right of people peaceably to assemble” it doesn’t say that right comes with the risk of being arrested or beaten (Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 53). America is not and has never been perfect, but we are a country that strives for constant improvement. And I believe protecting our First Amendment rights, all of them, is an excellent place to start.
The phrase “We the People” ,the very first words in the preamble of our Constitution, summarize what America is all about (Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 48).
Being a government of, for, and by the people, our Constitution guarantees American citizens certain rights. The Bill of Rights lists these rights, guaranteed to all American citizens, and constitutionally protected (Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 53). It is said these rights cannot be taken away. But unfortunately this is not always the case
The First Amendment guarantees a number of rights and freedoms to American citizens. It is written as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 53).”
The First Amendment right to protest has been exercised frequently by the American people, and historically has had a huge impact on the formation of public policy; but it is the right that is protected least often.
The right to protest is infringed upon more often than any other First Amendment Right. We, as a country, can’t imagine our freedom of speech or religion being taken away from us. For this, we see America as better than some other countries, where citizens do not have these rights. And yet when it comes to the Right to Protest, our government reacts in a very similar way to these countries we hold ourselves to be better than, with police brutality, mass arrests, and every attempt to stifle the voices of the dissenting (“Civil Disobedience”).
During the Civil Rights movement, Dr. Martin Luther King was jailed several times for leading peaceful marches, boycotts, and sit-ins. There were also beatings, mass arrests and some demonstrators were even killed (“Civil Disobedience“).
The Anti-Vietnam War Movement led massive demonstrations on college campus’ around the country and in 1970, four people were killed by the Ohio National Guard at Kent State University (“Anti-Vietnam War Movement”)
The Right to Protest would seem to be our least popular First Amendment Right. This is no different in the case of the recent ever-spreading Occupy Wall Street movement.
It began with an email sent from Adbusters magazine. They called for a revolution and set a date September 17th. They began meeting and planning in August. But when the question was put forth “What is our one demand?” an answer could not be found. It was decided there would be no demands, simply a movement, one that embodied the frustration of the American people and calling for radical change (Schneider).
When September 17th came around, close to 2,000 people showed up. It was not the 20,000 people that Adbusters had originally hoped for, but it was a beginning. The movement soon spread to other large cities: Occupy Boston, Occupy Oakland, Occupy Newark and so on (Schneider).
The protestors are a diverse group ranging from Socialist and Anarchists, to War Veterans, Labor Unions, Student Clubs, and just plain dissatisfied Americans. They are not united by any theme, political ideology, or demands, but are unanimous in their dissatisfaction at the direction our country has taken. They are unhappy with Wall Street and what they feel it represents “The stranglehold on American politics and society by the interests of a wealthy few, a government by the corporations and apparently for them (Schneider)”.
Lucy Kafanov, Russia Today, Producer and Studio Anchor says:
“It’s not so much about the protests as the underlying economic situations that’s leading to the conditions encouraging people to take to the streets….They feel like the economic system no longer represents them and many here just don’t feel like it’s a democracy, like it’s the kind of country that they thought that they were originally living in. People are trying to take a stand for what they feel is right (“Occupy Boston”).
On my own visit to the Occupy Boston site, I too got a general sense of frustration. People stood in the rain holding signs. Signs said things such as “The beginning is near”, “Our government is going to fail”, “I served eight years in the USMC to protect people’s rights, NOT bank rights”, and of course “We are the 99%”. One man stood on the corner wearing a suit and tie, holding a briefcase and a sign that said “Corporations are people too”.
The camp seemed forlorn and distant. Rain poured on the protestors and Boston police stood by keeping a close eye on the situation. I walked past groups of protestors who stared back despondently, and none of them made any effort to talk to me. But when I did approach a group with questions, their eyes burned bright and excitement grew. They care about what they are doing, and while a feeling of frustration and hopelessness pervades the campsite, it can’t compare to the passion they have for their cause.
“I’m out here because I want to make a difference” one protestor gushed. “You know we are the 99 percent.”
I asked her why she thought so many people were opposed to their cause and why the American people even allow such massive tax cuts on the wealthy.
Her reply was “I think part of it is that people just don’t want to get involved. They sit on their couches watching Dancing with the Stars and not really paying attention to what’s going on…A lot of it is the media. The people with the money are the one’s who have the voice…We could just cut defense spending. So much is spent on the military. And these tax cuts aren’t going to create jobs. Right now Corporations are hoarding their money. That has to stop! Not just for my generation but for yours. You didn’t ask for this! That’s why we’re standing out here in solidarity. You know my kids say I’m a Hippie..(Anonymous)”
“Yes!” her friend interjects. “But the Hippies were right!(Anonymous)”
The overall consensus is that the direction America is taking is not a good one. The Occupy movement is about changing that direction. They are exercising their first amendment right to protest. Exercising that right has led them to be beaten, pepper-sprayed, shot at, arrested, and least of all their permit renewals denied.
Students at the University of California were peacefully sitting in a line on a sidewalk when police closed in. The students were pepper-sprayed and paint ball guns were pointed directly at their faces as they were brutally shot at (“Occupy Maced”).
Another young college girl, Chelsea Elliot was also pepper-sprayed, simply for being there. She was standing on the sidewalk and didn’t even know it was coming until she was pepper-sprayed by NYPD, with absolutely no provocation on her part (“Chelsea Elliot”).
The worst has been seen in Oakland. Occupiers have been mercilessly beaten, tear-gassed, and even shot at. Police raided their campsite, set off tear-gas and fired into the crowd of unarmed protestors. Many an American citizen, exercising their first amendment rights, were injured (“Shots Fired at ‘Occupy Oakland’ Protest”).
A lot of this brutality is not taken seriously, probably because the of the unpopularity of the movement among mainstream America. A lot of it is excused because the protestors are, technically, breaking the law.
But in addition to our first amendment right to peaceably assemble, there is our fifth amendment right to not be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 53)“. Brutal beatings and being shot at and pepper-sprayed could be construed as a loss of liberty, and in worst case scenarios could lead to a loss of life. When protestors tents are torn down, that would be a loss of property. As we know, there was no due process of law, simply police officers enraged at what this protest represents.
Here in America, this may not be taken seriously, but the rest of the world is disappointed in us.
A Russian news anchor says in a broadcast:
“More than 4,000 peaceful protestors have been arrested nationwide in the last two months. Any other country doing that would be internationally reprimanded for violating human rights. But ironically that doesn’t seem to be the case when it comes to the United States, a country that preaches freedom of expression (“Occupy Maced”).”
Police brutality is a recurring theme when it comes to civil disobedience. Civil disobedience, or refusing to obey a law or follow a policy believed to be wrong truly is an American tradition. It is directly related to the American idea of Popular sovereignty. This means that the government’s power is based on the consent of the people and that if the majority of people are unhappy with the government, then it must change(Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 4).
Without civil disobedience our country would be a very different place today. Civil disobedience was practiced by Quakers, suffragists, feminists, adherents of prohibition, pacifists and other resistors of war, civil rights groups, supporters of the disabled, and a wide array of other groups (“Civil Disobedience”).
Without Civil disobedience we may not even have an America. The founding fathers had to break many laws in the formation of our nation, and the Boston Tea Party of 1773 is our country’s most celebrated example of the destruction of private property and civil disobedience (Brydges).
To question, speak up, break rules, and even to revolt, truly is American. Had no one ever done these things, we would still be a colony of Great Britain. Women would not have the right to vote. Schools would still be segregated. In short, protest and civil disobedience are necessary and important aspects of a functioning democracy. It is a way for the people to make themselves heard and keep the government in check. It is one of our rights as citizens. Our First Amendment rights must be protected. When the Constitution says “Congress shall create no law..” it doesn’t mean no law except for the law that you need a permit. When it says “the right of people peaceably to assemble” it doesn’t say that right comes with the risk of being arrested or beaten (Light, Magleby, and Nemacheck 53). America is not and has never been perfect, but we are a country that strives for constant improvement. And I believe protecting our First Amendment rights, all of them, is an excellent place to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)