Does America Qualify As A Nation of “Haves” Vs “Have-Nots”?

Pew Research Center has collected data on America’s concept of “Haves” vs “Have-Nots“. And comparing data from two instances begs these questions.

• Did America change its mind about its perception of Haves and Have-Nots?
• Did America’s press (liberal and neocon) inform and keep America’s ombudsmen (voters) informed?

Lets look at how the perception of Haves Vs Have-nots seems to have changed between September of 2007 and September of 2011:

September 13, 2007

by Jodie T. Allen, Senior Editor, Pew Research Center and Michael Dimock, Associate Director for Research, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Far More Americans Now See Their Country as Sharply Divided Along Economic Lines

Over the past two decades, a growing share of the public has come to the view that American society is divided into two groups, the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Today, Americans are split evenly on the two-class question with as many saying the country is divided along economic lines as say this is not the case (48% each). In sharp contrast, in 1988, 71% rejected this notion, while just 26% saw a divided nation.[...]

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/593/haves-have-nots

September 29, 2011

No Consensus About Whether Nation Is Divided Into ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-Nots’

Despite an extended economic downturn, the public’s impression of whether the nation is economically divided remains relatively stable. While 45% say American society is divided between “haves” and “have-nots,” 52% say it is incorrect to think of the country this way. This is comparable to the balance of opinion a year ago.

The percentage of Americans who see society as divided between haves and have-nots declined shortly after Barack Obama took office, but has rebounded since. In April 2009, just 35% said the nation was divided economically, down from 44% in October 2008. The number saying the nation is economically divided increased to 42% a year later and has changed little since then (45% currently).[...]

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2109/haves-have-nots-economic-divisions

Pew Research states ” Public Divided in Perceptions of Economic Divisions”

The first poll was revealed just prior to the neocons’ December, 2007 Great Recession. And that poll was “down”. The second was revealed during serious economics contractions in America’s economy and that poll was “up”. Strange pattern. Is the press keeping America informed?

major deppresive disorder Responded to Joejolly’s Post: Derivatives, Neocons and America’s Great Recession Await the Arrival of “THE TRUTH”

Thanks for your response major deppesive disorder

Major deppresive disorder said:

mood disorder nos…

[...]Derivatives, Neocons and America’s Great Recession Await the Arrival of “THE TRUTH” « Joejolly’s Weblog[...]…

joejolly said:

Again – thanks for your response major deppresive disorder. Your counter-point to joejolly’s points is clever.

Obama Draws More Confidence than GOP Leaders on Deficit

PewResearchCenter Publications

Most Support Raising Taxes on High Incomes to Reduce Deficit

September 26, 2011

The public’s confidence in congressional leaders, particularly Republican leaders in Congress, has plummeted as the nation prepares for another round of deficit reduction debates. Just 35% say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in Republican leaders in Congress to do the right thing when it comes to dealing with the federal budget deficit, down from 47% in May. Fully 62% say they have little or no confidence in the Republican leaders on this issue.[...]

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2107/budget-deficit-debt-obama-republican-congressional-leaders-democratic-taxes-social-security-medicare-federal-spending

Not with my TAX CUTS you don’t!

That is the refrain heard from neocons as America struggled to upright a listing economy. And the neocons tax cuts could not be touched – not even to save an American economy in distress. But America’s ombudsmen(voters), in their wisdom, had placed them into positions of power. And the neocons were face to face with a problem America’s ombudsmen(voters) wanted solved.

The Republicans(neocons) started fighting the 2007 recession they caused the same way Republicans of 1929 fought their depression. Both focused away from the cause of the problem. Banks are part of the neocons’ political base.

In the 30′s Republicans focused on increasing America’s income via tariffs. And they were met with the same kind of response that the neocons gave to helping out in America’s financial needs.

Not with my tariff money you don’t!

That was the “tariff” refrain from other countries. And what had been called a depression became a GREAT DEPRESSION of the 30′s.

In 2011 the neocons shied away from increasing America’s income. Instead they focused on decreasing America’s debt. And labor jobs was “it”.

In both cases (1929 and 2007) the financial industry played more than a passive role in the economic distress. Perhaps the reason why the financial industry could play a decisive role in 2007 was the preparation that was done by neocons in 1999.

In 1999 certain banking laws were removed. Those laws had protected America’s economy for seventy-some-odd years. The neocons removed that protection from America’s economy. That returned the banking scenario back to depression era banking rules. All that remained was for somebody to come along and take advantage of banking de-regulation. Somebody did in 2003 and by December of 2007 America reaped the “rewards” of what the neocons did in 1999.

May the Good Lord have mercy on America’s financial soul.

Did the 30′s Great Depression “Learn Us Something”?

America is in the throes of an economic recession going on depression. Economic disasters are not new to America. America had a “killer” Great Depression in the 30′s.

Generally pain hurts. Great depressions are painful – generally. But there may be “specific instances” where great depressions are profitable or something. Why else would America want a repeat performance of the 30′s disaster? Why else would America, being of sound mind and body, remove the economic controls that protected America’s economy for some seventy-odd years?

In 1980 America’s ombudsmen(voters) decided to do something radical. America’s ombudsmen(voters) decided to gamble with a new economic management attempt. America elected neocons to head its government.

The neocons called themselves conservatives – even neo-conservatives. Much of America, in the world of politics, knew the word “conservative” to mean something akin to “frugal” in a monetary sense. Boy was America in for a surprise!!!

The neocons wrecked America’s treasury. The neocons took America’s economic system back to the 30′s. They dropped trillions on a war of questionable ethics and legality. Before they had their own war, they adopted a war in the jungles of South America and spent until America’s ombudsmen(voters) said “no more tax money for that war”. The neocons needed a new source of revenue.

The neocons’ “ethics” permitted the sale of recreational drugs to men, women and children in the neocons’ own country. However, those “customers” were not likely of the neocon political persuasion. The neocons may have relaxed the tenets of Christianity in this endeavor. The separation of church and state may have been the idea. And crack cocaine entered America’s marketplace from a most unusual source.

The neocons are a strange bunch in more ways than one. A TV talk show, many years ago, concentrated on politics. On the show was a collection of the top brains in the conservative movement. The topic turned to Ex-President Bill Clinton and the surplus he left in America’s treasury. The show ran out of time as a high ranking university man was preparing to attack the “notion” of a Bill Clinton treasury surplus.

When one’s own performance lacks quality – one may default to “cleverness”. The neocons have had to be clever for twenty-some-odd years.

America’s ombudsmen(voters) slept while their economy burned. Ignition started in 1999 when the neocons removed the protections that had been effective for 70 some-odd-years.

Intelligent human beings, in the 30′s, decided to solve the Great Depression problem of that day and attempt to keep the depression problem at bay for the sake of America and its children. America’s Democrats did their job and their duty in recovering from America’s Great Depression of the 30′s.

But then came the neocons.

The neocons “let loose” their political base on America’s economy by removing the laws that had protected America’s economy since the 30′s. And four years after the neocons focused on the use of de-regulation America’s economy was in a great recession.

Did the 30′s Great Depression “Learn Us Anything”?

Small Donors Are Slow to Return to the Obama Fold

The New York Times

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

September 24, 2011

Mr. Confessore said:

They were once among President Obama’s most loyal supporters and a potent symbol of his political brand: voters of moderate means who dug deep for the candidate and his message of hope and change, sending him $10 or $25 or $50 every few weeks or months.

joejolly says:

It is true, very true that the neocons have attacked the financial resources of the working class while protecting even TAX CUTS of big people. And while this does impact political contributions, it does not necessarily impact loyalty. And the press should not go out on a limb mis-reading a lack of money as a lack of loyalty.

Mr. Confessore said:

But in recent months, the frustration and disillusionment that have dragged down Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have crept into the ranks of his vaunted small-donor army, underscoring the challenges he faces as he seeks to rekindle grass-roots enthusiasm for his re-election bid.

joejolly says:

There was frustration and disillusionment when President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. That wasn’t a short- coming on the part of the President. It was a magnificent achievement – but not in the “judgement” of the neocons.

There was frustration and disillusionment when President Obama put an end to one of the neocons most favorite pastimes. President Obama wanted an end to the Iraq war.

There was frustration and disillusionment when President Obama put his stamp of approval on ending the atrocity that was call Guantanamo. Perhaps the Japanese Americans, in the 40′s would still be in Guantanamo like camps if the neocons had their way.

There was frustration and disillusionment when President Obama put his stamp of approval on health care for Americans. Health care helps keep American men, women and children out of coffins. That’s more important than eating cheeseburger, drinking coffee and eating buttered toast. So, the health care industry mounted bigger opposition than did that cheeseburger, coffee and butter coalition.

Mr. Confessore said:

In interviews with dozens of low-dollar contributors in the past two weeks, some said they were unhappy with what they viewed as Mr. Obama’s overly conciliatory approach to Congressional Republicans. Others cited what they saw as a lack of passion in the president, or said the sour economy had drained both their enthusiasm and their pocketbooks.

joejolly says:

With President Obama one does not have to question which comes first – America or political party? It’s America first. President Obama won’t crash America in a duel with the neocons. But the neocons have shown no such precautions.

President Obama, from day one, hit the ground running. He gave America more than America usually gets from its paid politicians. And the “loyal opposition” didn’t like that kind of competition.

Politicians who, in twenty-some-odd years of service never made “man of the year” don’t like newly minted Presidents earning a peace prize during a first term. And they went berserk.

Highly profitable health care organizations don’t like a President who accomplished within his first term what Presidents from President Truman’s days had been trying to accomplish. And the health care industry made political contributions to the President’s political opposition.

Certainly some of the President’s loyal supporters don’t like some of the things he has done. But none should be able to say that his actions are/were contrary to America, its ideals, its ethics, its fabric and yes – common sense. He has not claimed the universe as his own.

BBC News website wins top award

BBC NEWS

25 September 2011

The BBC News website has won an international award for general excellence in online journalism.

The site won the Online Journalism Award for a large website beating competition from the New York Times, Washington Post and Al-Jazeera English.

Accepting the award in Boston, features editor Giles Wilson said it was “fantastic recognition” for the hard work of all involved in the site.

Zeit Online, Flipboard and the Washington Post also won awards.
‘Excellent work’[...]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15051444

But remember this?

Murdoch attack on ‘dominant’ BBC

News Corporation’s James Murdoch has said that a “dominant” BBC threatens independent journalism in the UK.[...]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8227915.stm

And this?

Phone-hacking scandal: Commons recess set to be delayed

David Cameron has said the commons will be recalled on Wednesday to debate the latest developments in the phone-hacking scandal.[...]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14182535

And this from The Register?

Murdoch: Google is mortal and together we can kill it Or at least tame it[...]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/17/murdoch_google_analysis/

The idea behind “freedom of the press” is alive and well in some quarters – but not so in others.

Sounding the Economic Alarm – Twenty-Some-Odd Years Late and Trillions of Dollars Short

Politics and economies don’t have to be compatible. Politics can devour economies. Reality seems to be saying: the more experience a political party has with killing economies the greater the risk that trend might continue.

No country, on the face of the earth, has a guaranteed existence. Dinosaurs ruled with brute force. But they’re gone – we think. Human beings ruled with intellect. And we’ll till here – we think.

“Once burned -twice shy” is a “process” of the human intellect. It means we learn from experience. It means we look at feedback from our activities. And it means that we try – so much – to avoid making the same mistake twice.

In 1929 America had no dinosaurs to contend with. America had a depression – which escalated into a great depression after the party in power tried to fix it.

For the 30′s Great Depression, America’s ombudsmen(voters) decided against having the political party that caused the problem also fix the problem. America’s ombudsmen(voters) turned to the Democrats.

Democrats were employed to fix the GREAT DEPRESSION of the 30′s. And they not only fixed that current problem of the 30′s – they used the human “look ahead” feature(dinosaurs didn’t likely have that feature) to make changes that would prevent a future recurrence of the same type problem. The Democrats created the Glass-Steagall Act. And America lived economically happy for the next 70 some-odd-years.

But in 1980 America’s ombudsmen(voters), after listening to William J. Buckley (a conservative intellectual who all America could like), decided to enlist the services of a “political representation” of William J. Buckley. They elected Ronald Reagan.

And it was downhill from there. Look again at how the neocons “managed” the national debt:

http://joejolly.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/us-national-debt-history-by-president-graph/

The Democrats, during America’s Great Depression, gave America the Glass-Steagall Act. The Republicans(neocons), in 1999 countered with their Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Are those two acts related and if so how? References to both acts can be seen at the Glass-Steagall Act link(above) which is a Wikipedia link:

The Banking Act of 1933, Pub.L. 73-66, 48 Stat. 162, enacted June 16, 1933, was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.[1] It is most commonly known as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its legislative [...]

Politics and economies don’t have to be compatible. Politics can devour economies. And America has twice seen that happen. America saw politics devour its economy in 1929 and again in 2007.

America’s 2007 economic tragedy was set up by first removing the economic protections that the 30′s Great Depression fighting laws produced. That was the 30′s Glass-Steagall Act. Countering that act was the neocons’ 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. And the neocons successfully removed major protections from America’s economy.

While dinosaurs might not have had the brains to do what the necons successfully did – simple viruses do. Attack the protection first and the rest is easy. Removing the protections from America’s economy made the upcoming 2007 “event” easier.

And some in the mainstream press have now decided to sound the economic alarm. WOW.

Where were they in 1999 when the neocons were busy setting up the conditions for America’s December 2007 date with economic disaster?

Rolling back America’s economic protections to the Great Depression era was cause for alarm – but not for the brain of a dinosaur. The dinosaur brain had vanished – we think.

Perhaps its never too late to sound the economic alarm. Perhaps.

Press Widely Criticized, But Trusted More than Other Sources of Information

PewResearchCenter Publications

Views of the News Media: 1985-2011 September 22, 2011 Negative opinions about the performance of news organizations now equal or surpass all-time highs on nine of 12 core measures the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has been tracking since 1985. However, these bleak findings are put into some perspective by the fact that news organizations are more trusted sources of information than are many other institutions, including government and business.

Fully 66% say news stories often are inaccurate, 77% think that news organizations tend to favor one side, and 80% say news organizations are often influenced by powerful people and organizations.

The public’s impressions of the national media may be influenced more by their opinions of cable news outlets than their views of other news sources, such as network or local TV news, newspapers or internet news outlets. When asked what first comes to mind when they think of “news organizations,” most name a cable news outlet, with CNN and Fox News receiving the most[...] http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2104/news-organizations-inaccurate-trust-cable-news-press-media-coverage

News sources have a job to do. News sources also have a duty to perform. Both are important. Early-on America called it “freedom of the press.” That is supposed to mean something. It used to.

News sources should inform its readers. Many, if not most Americans, get their information via news sources. After college, that’s how the masses get information. That’s how the masses know what is going on.

And polls, of the population, test that knowledge base. America does not seem to be scoring highly in the “CURRENT EVENTS” news category. And at this time, in neocon history, the prognosis is scary. It is possible that a political party, with a poor performance history, might not want a “smart electorate”.

Politics has also impacted the press. Passive reporting has become activist supporting.

Some elements of the press are now blatantly political. And while being so, the population might hear the news source say its news is fair and balanced. There may also be reports like this.

Some bad apples in the press world have now been detected and exposed. Hopefully, it is not too late to save the barrel.

America, the Melting Pot?

America used to be called a melting pot. That was in response to America’s call to humanity the world over – to come to her shores. They would likely be greeted by America’s Statue of Liberty which was a gift from France.

Many different nationalities came to America and became Americans by way of a legal process. Some skipped the legal process and became employees of America’s businesses.

The immigrants did not have to give up all their social customs to become Americans. Customs, not in conflict with America’s laws and mores were permitted. And allegiance to America was expected. America did not expect “the country of origin”, whether by birth or political design, to dictate America’s politics in favor of a foreign country.

The “country of origin” idea seems to be a factor in America’s politics. It sources a divided allegiance which needs much care and attention.

But America is not called a melting pot much anymore. And some of the content in the pot has yet to reach melting point after an extended stay in the pot. And some of the content in the pot don’t seem to desire melting. That content seems to focus on “the country of origin”.

Who, For Twenty-Some-Odd Years, Was Minding America’s Store?

The task of minding America’s store rest with America’s citizens. America’s citizens delegates that responsibility to hired politicians. That system has worked fine for hundreds of years. America’s ombudsmen(voters) had only two political parties to choose from. But in 1980 it seemed like three political parties wearing the labels of only two political parties. The neocons took over the Republican party in 1980.

America’s ombudsmen(voters), in 1980, took a little hiatus after the neocons were elected into powerful positions of America’s government. And after twenty-some-odd years, America ombudsmen(voters) returned to find things quite different from the 1980 days. Things were quite different from what America had been like during much of its Constitutional existence: America’s economy took a major hit.

Things looked similar to America’s 1929 conditions. But those conditions were faced and fixed by the democrats and America’s Congress way back in the 30′s. And America had enjoyed 70 some odd years of prosperity afterwards.

Did those 1930′s protections for America’s economy fail? Did the protections the Democrats placed on American’s bank accounts fail?

The answers to those questions are “NO” and “NO”.

The 1930′s protections for America’s economy did not fail. They were removed! WHY? Why did the neocons attack Iraq? Nobody knows.

The 1930′s protections of American’s bank accounts were not removed.

It has been said that human beings are motivated to action in order to make a gain or to avoid a loss. And we know the neocons are human beings. Why did the neocons remove the protections place on America’s economy? Was it to make  a gain – if so for whom? Was it to avoid a loss – if so for whom?

Who was minding America’s store in 1991 when protections were removed from America’s economy? Who alerted America’s ombudsmen(voters) to the fact that their economy had been switched back to the environment of the Great Depression Past?

America’s press ought to be doing more to help America to mind the store. And prior to 1980 it used to be that way.

“Be a good citizen and vote” – they used to say.

Now too many say “vote neocon“. And nothing can kill Kipling’s 6 Honest Serving Men quicker than political allegiances.

It looks like the answer to “who was minding the store” is nobody.