The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club discussion
Reality-Based Chat. Speak!
Dan wrote: "I worked for UPI for 15 years in my youth, and I am very familiar with the functioning of the news media, even today. Despite the fact that there has been enormous consolidation in the media, gener..."Hi, Dan!
I'm extremely happy to have a journalistic professional weigh in, so thank you very sincerely for your contributions! (Hitherto, nobody here but us retired professors and teachers and social workers and suchlike, cranky rhetoricians all :) , and perhaps the occasional chicken with exceptionally good typing skills.) We are all quite cheerfully unbalanced. :) But unbalanced in a nontoxic way, as over against the Faux folks.
You mentioned that you were "keeping tabs on all sides" (albeit needing, perhaps, an infusion of Pepto-Bismol to cope with "the extreme right-wing") in service, I think, of something you were writing. If that's your current work-in-progress, "Let's Do Whatever Works and Call It Capitalism," then... if I'm inferring correctly that you want to invoke the current status of "capitalism" as a magical lexical fetishization object capable of conferring imagined desirability on any project, no matter what its nature, I'm all for it. :) Hitherto, "capitalism's"™ magical properties have been used exclusively by the right wing to advance projects that manifestly don't work (except in the respect that they enrich plutocrats and immiserate everybody else), so it seems only fair that we on the left (whose agenda is not to promote incalculable suffering) should be able to use it, as well. In fact, if you wanted to write, "Let's Do Whatever Works and Call It Satanic Randian Objectivism" (which would probably elicit even more rabid fervor from the truly powerful for projects so designated), then I'd like that, too (provided, naturally, that we reserved its use exclusively to anoint humanitarian projects with a wholly inaccurate name, but one that would confuse the kleptocracy). Anyway, the idea is cute, though I don't realistically think that it will cut much ice with the actual powers-that-be, but it might confuse their brainwashed, Faux-addicted electoral proxies, so it's worth a try. It's a really clever title, in any case, and a humanitarian agenda by any other name (even a sickening one) would smell as sweet, so would liberalism, were it not "liberalism" called, retain that sweet perfection that is all its own. :) :)
A Modest ProposalJust a thought, but apropos of Obama's call for higher taxes on the trillionaire, castle-collecting set in an attempt to alleviate the plight of the plutocratic blood bank known as "the middle class" (which we know will immediately elicit gasps, exclamations of horror, and fainting spells from the Faux News Bobbleheads, who will scream, "Higher Taxes, Higher Taxes, the Sky is Falling" -- and be believed by the dittoheads who would actually have benefited from Obama's proposal, why don't we try something else? Because much of the populace is too intractably brainwashed to be able to distinguish between higher taxes for corporations and plutocrats... and higher taxes for them, why don't we cut the Faux monsters off at the pass, because it can work the other way, too. Let Obama propose lower taxes (say, a cut of some fraction of a percent for everyone earning less than 250K, which would cover most people), accompanied by a 50% obligatory tax rate for millionaires and corporations? (Corporations that moved overseas to avoid it would be forbidden to sell products -- or do any sort of business -- in the United States.) I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty certain the reduction could be calibrated so that the gain would massively exceed it.
Now , Obama would be able to claim that he's demanding lower taxes! (with the inconsequential proviso that millionaires and corporations would be excluded). And he could pound the Faux Drum incessantly: lower taxes! lower taxes!* How would Faux counter that?
* except for the rich
Mark, I actually think that the whole "tax and spend" faux cry that worked for the conservatives in the past doesn't work anymore. After Bush lowered taxes and started wars, even stupid people saw it wasn't a good idea. Taxes have been raised on the rich in California (the place where lower real estate taxes through proposition 13 began), and no one's complaining. Did you notice that possibly the most cynical politician alive, plutocrat Romney, is now pretending to be a populist? He's complaining about income inequality. Obama just needs to make it clear that he's raising taxes on the rich, and I think most Americans will accept the proposal, no matter what the talking heads say.
Mary wrote: "Mark, I actually think that the whole "tax and spend" faux cry that worked for the conservatives in the past doesn't work anymore. After Bush lowered taxes and started wars, even stupid people saw..."What you say makes sense, Mary, but California is atypical and anomalous (which is to say, "blue"), so I'm not sure anything can be extrapolated. :) And I guess I'm still Eeyore -- perennially and hopelessly unoptimistic that stupid people will see something a second time, even if they've managed to puzzle it out once. What Romney says publicly as a faux-populist isn't necessarily going to have any bearing on Republican media strategy, and I could definitely be wrong, but my impression is that they always stick with the memes that have worked for them in past, and "Democrats want to raise your taxes" is one that has always worked. I completely agree with you that people like the idea of raising taxes on the rich, but I think that, the moment the right-wing noise machine says "Obama wants to raise taxes," stupid people react in a Pavlovian way. (They probably don't actually salivate, but they immediately feel that their own taxes are the ones at issue, no matter how clear it is that that isn't true.) And people never seem to vote for the things they actually like, but instead for the sleaziest Republican hucksters purveying the things they really don't like, but pushing their buttons effectively. So I think Obama's rallying cry should be "I want to lower your taxes and raise taxes on the rich," to prevent Faux from ringing the bell that causes the stupid to salivate. You're generally more level-headed than I am, so you do give me pause, but I'm still convinced that, if Obama gives them any least basis for muddying the issue, then Faux is still going to ring that bell. And anyway, what's the downside of lowering taxes on the middle class an infinitesimal sliver, just to defuse the issue and stake a flag on the "lower taxes" hill? (And it was a *very* "modest proposal," hardly even Swiftian. I didn't say a word about the consumption of babies. :) :))
Any time that anyone proposed doing anything to lessen income inequality the Republicans cry "Class Warfare!" That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to do something. I like the idea of asking for lower tasks for anyone with an income of less than $250,000. Maybe that would get the play it needs. I'm interested in seeing the spin on the State of the Union address since everyone already knows what Obama is going to say already.
I am not in favor of lowering taxes on anyone. Our tax burden today, on average, is lower than it has been since the 1920s. About 43% of the people don't pay income taxes - but they do pay into Social Security and Medicare. The government needs revenue. The right-wing's second purpose in cutting taxes - the first being to enrich themselves and their very wealthy supporters - is to starve government so that it can't do anything. They have said that repeatedly.
Government needs to do things but really can't do a lot with deficit spending now because the Republicans succeeded in blowing the national debt sky-high. So more revenue is needed. It doesn't have to come from the middle class. There are many ways to raise revenues.
In my book I calculated that two changes in the corporate tax law and one in the inheritance law would yield billions in annual revenue. Closing the loophole on transfers of corporate assets to subsidiaries outside the country would yield about $2 billion a year. Eliminating the deferral of income taxes on profits made overseas would yield about $80 billion a year (many issues with this, and not space here to discuss), and eliminating the step-up basis exception in the inheritance would yield somewhere between $20 and $64 billion a year, depending on whose calculations are used - the White House in the first case and the Congressional Budget Office in the second. Obama is going to propose that change in the inheritance tax law tonight.
Then we put a tax on Wall Street transactions. It could yield many, many billions per year.
Then we restore the progressive income tax, and start raising tax rates progressively on incomes above $250,000, with a top marginal rate somewhere around 60%. I haven't calculated the revenue from this, yet, but it is substantial.
Then lift the ceiling on Social Security withholding and increase the percentage of withholding on higher incomes both for Social Security and Medicare.
All of these changes right now would yield a surplus in the hundreds of billions of dollars. That's what we need to do the things that need to be done.
Incidentally, I got the idea for my book title "Let's Do What Works and Call it Capitalism" from a story that circulated around the Internet a few years ago about an American visitor to China commenting to her guide that a luxury development they visit seems inconsistent with their system. The guide replied:
"We try different ideas and then we do the ones that work and call it socialism."
Dan wrote: "I am not in favor of lowering taxes on anyone. Our tax burden today, on average, is lower than it has been since the 1920s. About 43% of the people don't pay income taxes - but they do pay into Soc..."I'm not really in favor of it, either. But my calculus is that a negligible reduction in rates for the middle class (with no real consequences) could be used to defuse one of the most potent memes the Republicans have perennially used to block all tax hikes on the obscenely rich, and thereby leverage enough public opinion to facilitate the desperately needed passage of those hikes, which would massively outweigh the reduction. The proposal wasn't about policy: it was about PR strategy, something the Republicans have always deployed immeasurably more effectively than the Democrats -- because they go straight for the reptile brain (per Drew Westen's The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation). I want to see the Democrats do "what works" in advancing their agenda.
I understand your point and it seems reasonable, but the problem is, those people cannot be reached - at least we haven't figured out how to reach them. See Paul Krugman's piece in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opi...and the link in his piece to a real thought-provoking article on the conservative as reactionary: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Cons...
Dan wrote: "I understand your point and it seems reasonable, but the problem is, those people cannot be reached - at least we haven't figured out how to reach them. See Paul Krugman's piece in the NY Times htt..."Krugman states the problem eloquently (as usual), and I do not in any respect disagree with his analysis or Robin's (except that I take exception in principle -- the principle being that of impassioned animus -- to the invocation of the oxymoronic term, "conservative mind").
The intransigent opposition of the predatory aristocracy notwithstanding, and their überpathological sense of entitlement, there have been instances of social progress brought about by concerted efforts on the part of unified movements, so there's a "proof of concept," anyway (though it could convincingly be argued that revolution and organized opposition are both impossible, in principle, in an effectively omniscient surveillance state, where everyone's each single act of communication and movement is known by the kakistocrats).
I agree: conservatives are reactionaries. They exert, moreover, mind control over the electoral masses, so a great bloc of them (especially the cognitively dualistic, intractably stupid ones) cannot be moved, and to them, facts absolutely do not matter.
Now, I may be guilty of the benighted indulgence of universal-stupidity-denial, but I'd prefer to think that there's a spectrum of resistance to reality among the ovine masses, and that it may be possible to nudge some of the ones in the middle. Since we no longer have much of a functioning democracy, and the Republicans have (in my opinion) pretty effectively implemented electoral nullification through voter suppression and a thousand other acts of infamy, it may not matter much at the ballot box. But we can work, only, with what's available, and if the left in combination with a middle (to some extent roused from its narcolepsy) can create sufficient agitation, then perhaps there's still some infinitesimal glimmer of hope that massive, unified defiance (even by those perpetually under surveillance) can wreak change... by moving the tectonic plates, so that the Old Game won't work any longer. Personally, I profoundly doubt it, but if I thought it were impossible, then there wouldn't have been much point in my strenuous efforts to resuscitate this group. Liberals need to appropriate the PR tools of the enemy to influence the moderates who aren't uniformly intractably resistant to reason. What else is there, after all? To acknowledge where we live, and under whose control, and post a sign at the gate reading, Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate?
I'm glad I joined this group because the entire purpose of my book is to resuscitate the progressive movement. I never will abandon hope - although that word has been tarnished by its recent use.
We haven't completely abandoned hope here, Dan, but it's been on life support since the November election. I have noticed, though, that the President's poll numbers are rising, and some of the Republicans are making "we can work with him" noises, so my comment last year that a completely Republican Congress couldn't be any worse than what we had might be valid. In fact, a completely Republican Congress might work better for this lame-duck President than the divided one.I agree with you that the Republican strategy is to starve the government so that it can't do anything. I also think that there was a racist element, part of the backlash to Obama's election, to the recent attempts to cut government jobs (even during the recession and already high unemployment). Many nonwhites moved into the middle class by working for the federal, state, and county governments. Cutting those jobs pushed those uppity folks who had the nerve to vote for a nonwhite President back below the poverty line. And then, of course, the conservatives complained about Obama's being the "food stamp" President and increasing poverty.
Mark, I hope Obama talks about the attacks on democracy tonight. I think the right to vote is as important an issue as income inequality. Enjoy the speech everybody. Let's hope no Republican decides to go rogue and shout, "You lie!" at the President.
Dan wrote: "I'm glad I joined this group because the entire purpose of my book is to resuscitate the progressive movement. I never will abandon hope - although that word has been tarnished by its recent use."Well, then your book will certainly have my wildly enthusiastic endorsement. Please let me know when it's ready for a review! And I appreciate your refusal to "say the struggle naught availeth."
Mary wrote: "We haven't completely abandoned hope here, Dan, but it's been on life support since the November election. I have noticed, though, that the President's poll numbers are rising, and some of the Rep.. are rising, and some of the Republicans are making "we can work with him" noises, so my comment last year that a completely Republican Congress couldn't be any worse than what we had might be valid. ."No, I think you were very discerning there, Mary. The Repubs have an incentive to project the illusion of mental stability and lack of blatantly evil intent in preparation for 2016 (though I still honestly believe they've achieved electoral nullification). But it does continue to make sense for them to cover all their bases.
As to racism, yes! I have always believed it to be, not merely a convenient tool for them (in recruiting racist dolts for electoral purposes), but an actual element of their agenda, motivated by a genuine animus. Of course, racism* has always been the lifeblood of the conservative mentality.
* Not to mention misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia, in general. Oh, and of course, Schadenfreude and "peniaphobia" (or "misopenia," which is a neologism, but I think it's more precisely accurate). Per Matt Taibbi, America has "a profound hatred of the weak and the poor." Chomsky has said the same thing. Actually, nearly everyone who isn't blind has said the same thing. It's kind of hard to miss.
Mark wrote: "Mary wrote: "We haven't completely abandoned hope here, Dan, but it's been on life support since the November election. I have noticed, though, that the President's poll numbers are rising, and so..."Great point Mark...Maybe it is because I am a minority or maybe it is because I grew up in a different time but I wonder what happened to the mentality of when you become rich and successful you have a responsibility to those less fortunate?
I am just not sure when poor began to equal stupid and lazy? Someone has to be the produce picker and someone has to be the janitor these positions do not make anyone less than in fact these are necessary jobs. Sadly these jobs will never be 6 figures and if they do then the dollar is worthless. I just wonder what has happened to our empathy for our fellow man?
Anyway did anyone watch the Republican response to the State of the Union? I was so pissed she was talking about how hard it was growing up with the plastic wonder bread bags - first off all I think all kinds did that - you could keep snow out of your boots and I am not sure the technology was available to have other options. What was worse is she is talking like she still believes this when she is wearing a big old David Yurman necklace - which is very pricey. Then she talked about the pipeline proving all these jobs- lies I tell you lies.
Rachel Maddow pointed out some behind the scenes controversy.
I find it very ironic that now at a point in history where we really need unbiased news we seemed to get so much of it from the left and right. Did anyone ever read the poll where it shows how uninformed our population is? It was really sad and Fox news viewers were the worst off.
Dawn wrote..."I wonder what happened to the mentality of when you become rich and successful you have a responsibility to those less fortunate?"Oh, that frivolous, antiquated notion was long ago abolished by the Capitalist Church of Randian Objectivism, whose central tenet (selfishness is the greatest virtue) is now the cornerstone of American theology. Interestingly, the corporatocracy has managed to accomplish this miraculous abolition of decency by ceaselessly invoking the name of a religion based on worship of a great teacher who said:
1) Sell all that you have and give to the poor.
2) It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
3) Whatever you did for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.
Apparently, among the concepts alien to members of the CCRO* (along with humanity, decency, pacifism and humility) is... um, irony.
* A wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party
And speaking of ignorance, there is something that, apparently, 37% of Americans are unable to locate on a map:
...
The United States of America
(see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTG4to...)
Bill Maher has also interestingly pointed out that approximately 50 percent of Americans are unaware that Christianity is a newer religion than Judaism. It would seem that, when presented with a book consisting of an Old Testament and a New Testament, 50% of Americans can't figure out which one is... um, older.
If you want to see where things are going well, under progressive government, look at Minnesota, one of my favorite states. I just posted a reprint of a piece about their terrific Democratic governor:http://progressiveamericanthought.blo...
Mark wrote: Bill Maher has also interestingly pointed out that approximately 50 percent of Americans are unaware that Christianity is a newer religion than Judaism.
A woman I was talking to who is far from stupid but distressingly conservative didn't know that Islam is not a hierarchical religion. She (a Catholic) thought they must have somebody like the Pope "who tells them what to do."
A woman I was talking to who is far from stupid but distressingly conservative didn't know that Islam is not a hierarchical religion. She (a Catholic) thought they must have somebody like the Pope "who tells them what to do."
I didn't watch that Iowa woman's response, Dawn. I usually like to listen to the Republicans' response, but based on what I read and heard about her during the campaign, I figured she was Michelle Bachmann's replacement, a crazy Tea Partier, only she's in the Senate, so she'll be there for six years. I guess they picked her because she's a woman, and they are trying to show that the GOP is not just a party of white men. I'm surprised they didn't pick that black Mormon woman.I liked Obama's speech except for the part about still believing that we are not black/white, red/blue, but united. I hope that was just happy State of the Union talk. If not, the man is delusional, living in a bubble. We are much more black and white, red and blue than when he took office. It's not his fault; it's just part of the backlash to the election of a nonwhite President.
Maggie wrote: "Mark wrote: Bill Maher has also interestingly pointed out that approximately 50 percent of Americans are unaware that Christianity is a newer religion than Judaism.A woman I was talking to who is..."
I think most Americans have no concept whatever of Islam. They've never heard of the Qur'an, don't know that Jesus was one of the recognized prophets of Islam (or that "Islam" itself means "submission"), and probably, for that matter, couldn't really distinguish it from Buddhism, Shinto or Hinduism. It's all one, vague mix of stuff that's "non-Christian," so it's unacceptable to them, political issues aside. Of course, as I mentioned above, 37% of Americans can't find the United States on a map, so you really wouldn't expect them to know much about other religions. Actually, two-thirds of them cannot name even one branch of the United States federal government.
And here's more good news on the climatological front (for those of you tracking the imminence of Ragnorak):http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sp...
Is everyone reading Naomi Klein's book? (This is your latest, annoying exhortation. :))
Mary wrote: "I didn't watch that Iowa woman's response, Dawn. I usually like to listen to the Republicans' response, but based on what I read and heard about her during the campaign, I figured she was Michelle..."I think it really was just "happy State of the Union talk," Mary. For the most part, it isn't Obama's style to highlight the overwhelmingly obvious racial divide. Personally, I really wish he would, but that has to do more with my own sense that egregious injustice ought constantly to be shoved into people's faces... than it does with any pragmatic calculus of what would be helpful. I think Obama's strategic instincts are generally good; it's just that his rhetoric fails to meet the (probably counterproductive) incendiary standards that my own passion would want to see it embrace.
Speaking only for myself, of course… as a former Roman Catholic, it does not surprise me that a person of the Catholic faith did not know anything about Islam. As a Catholic (and attending Catholic schools for 12 years), we were taught that our religion was the 'one true faith as started by Jesus Christ'. I don't believe any other religions were ever mentioned… honestly, it seemed as if they were considered irrelevant.I watched the State of the Union speech and the numerous responses and it's interesting that Joni Ernst was compared to Michele Bachmann as she LOOKED so much like her when she was speaking. To me, there is something disturbing about their eyes… they have the very intense eyes of a zealot! I find them quite frightening actually. You're right Mary… she definitely spews the rhetoric of the Tea Party… eliminate the IRS, Dept, of Education and all regulations by the EPA… you know, the wish list of all Tea Partiers.
As for President Obama… you know, I have been listening to him intently for all of these years and I really believe he is an eternal optimist. I believe that HE believes that what unites us is greater than what divides us. And Mark, I also have the impression that he is a person who really dislikes conflict and perhaps confrontation. It just isn't his style… in my opinion, he is just too laid back and 'classy' for that!!! It seems as if he believes that all problems and conflicts can be solved by calm, reasonable and logical discussions… and that is probably the biggest problem as those in the other party do not subscribe to those principles.
Darlene wrote: "Speaking only for myself, of course… as a former Roman Catholic, it does not surprise me that a person of the Catholic faith did not know anything about Islam. As a Catholic (and attending Catholic..."Darlene - You're absolutely right about Ernst's and Bachmann's "gaze of unsettling fanaticism." It's always perplexed me, frankly, why people can't see in certain right-wing politicians the aura of creepy, disturbing malevolence that seems so manifestly obvious to me -- that screams at me from the television. But they can't. It's a sort of weird blindness to radioactive sociopathy that, I suppose, makes many of us on the left the one-eyed prospective monarchs (certain to be killed if ever coronated) in the Kingdom of the Blind. Incessantly, I ask myself: "Why can't people see that these ignorant demagogues are bats*** crazy?" But they just can't, and I've reconciled myself to it.
About Obama, you're likewise absolutely right: coolness, grace and conspicuous rationality are his hallmarks: all the things to which Americans react with discomfort -- and those on the right wing, with absolute loathing.
BAT**** CRAZY…. perfect! :) That is exactly what I meant and was trying to finesse my way around it!! :) And I've always had the impression that President Obama is always conscious and perhaps overly cautious of being labeled an 'angry black man' so maybe because he is aware of that label, he perhaps tries to make sure that he is not coming across that way. I have heard a number of talking heads from Faux News refer to him.. and Michelle in that way over the course of his presidency. I wanted to mention one other thing about the State of the Union address… I very much liked the President's proposals for higher education. As I am the mother of two kids in college, I would be grateful for anything that would help. It used to be.. and I was able to do this myself… that you could work and along with grants and loans, could put yourself through college. I don't believe that is possible today. Tuition is astronomical.. at least in my state of Pennsylvania. I just cannot understand how Republicans can be against investing in the future of the children they profess to care so much about… family values and all. It's quite disheartening for me to see this.
Darlene wrote: "BAT**** CRAZY…. perfect! :) ... and perhaps grants and loans, could put yourself through college. I don't believe that is possible today. Tuition is astronomical.. ..."Darlene, you could not be more spot on, and you have, in fact, just won the "2015 Award for Understatement" (which entitles you to a million dollars, enough to pay for 10% of a private college education for the child of your choice). Honestly, as a retired academic, I have no idea what it's for or where it goes! Heaven only knows, it never went to pay me! As of when I retired, students at my college were paying 25K+, just for tuition. So, typically, 3K per course. I had, usually, only about 15-20 students per course (because I taught only the advanced ones), but there were many introductory courses with enrollment upwards of a hundred. But forget that, and suppose there had only been courses like mine. Then each of my courses was raking in 45-60K, not too much less than my annual salary. So what about the 300K from the other courses I taught? Was it used to change the light bulbs in the classrooms? To mow the grass? To pay for exorbitantly-priced chalk? The only possible expense that could have accounted for even part of it would have been books for the library, and honestly, it was a modest library, and I, alone, could have been covering the annual book budget. Were the president and the few administrators and deans each paid 5 million dollars a year? I didn't get it! And this was typical of every small, reasonably selective private college, so that mine wasn't anomalous. And, every year, the tuition would rise by four times the COLA, because chalk was obviously starting to cost more than Tiffany-quality diamonds. I actually do have my beliefs regarding this discrepancy, but the proof is left to the reader.
Mary wrote: "I didn't watch that Iowa woman's response, Dawn. I usually like to listen to the Republicans' response, but based on what I read and heard about her during the campaign, I figured she was Michelle..."I liked Pres. Obama's speech. And I think he said that at the end about us being one country because he has to be a bit conciliatory if he hopes to get anything done at all. Executive decisions can only go so far.
Lisa wrote: "Mary wrote: "I didn't watch that Iowa woman's response, Dawn. I usually like to listen to the Republicans' response, but based on what I read and heard about her during the campaign, I figured she..."I liked it, too, Lisa, though as I say, I admire his verbal decorum more than I seek to emulate it. :) I would like to hope, as you, that sounding a conciliatory note would yield some benefit, but I sort of view his opposition party as a pack of rabid hyenas not much amenable to conciliation, so perhaps he was merely inspired by Will Rogers: "Diplomacy is the art of saying, 'nice doggie'... until you can find a rock.'"
I started college in the fall of 1961 at Johns Hopkins. I had a scholarship of $2,000, which covered all of tuition and room and board. In today's dollars that's about $15,000. The tuition and room and board at JHU now is a little over $60,000. And that is not much different from what has happened throughout higher education. In fact, overall the costs have risen more than 500% since the mid 1980s. It costs about $25,000 a year to go to a state university in California now. It was free before Reagan became Governor.
Something scandalous has happened in higher education. It is difficult to see how the dramatic increase in costs can be justified. I don't think it is reflected in the salaries of the professors, or in small class sizes. I can't imagine that maintenance costs have skyrocketed. I have read that there has been a huge increase in administrative expenses.
In the case of state colleges and universities, state government support has been cut in nearly every state, in some states more than others.
This all sort of sneaked up on Americans. The financial aid programs were too easy and too generous. Basically, there was no pressure on schools to keep costs down, and no real pressure on state politicians not to cut the education budgets. I don't know how this happened, but now it is a disaster.
Student loan debt exceeds credit card debt. Donald Trump can put his companies through numerous bankruptcies, clearing his debts periodically, but college grads can't clear their debts with bankruptcy.
Many now have loans exceeding $100,000, and they will be paying on them for most of their lives. In many cases, it will mean not buying a house.
The net effect is depressing to the economy. And it is only going to get worse.
I think this is one of the biggest problems in the country today, and something that affects almost everyone directly, or indirectly. Yet, almost nothing is being done about it.
Dan wrote: "I started college in the fall of 1961 at Johns Hopkins. I had a scholarship of $2,000, which covered all of tuition and room and board. In today's dollars that's about $15,000. The tuition and room..."Dan - I know why the caged student is extorted -- and I think you know why, too -- though we may not want to assert it very explicitly, even though conventional journalistic standards do not apply here.
But I will affirm categorically that, yes, it is none of the following:
1) professors' salaries
2) the cost of maintenance
3) library acquisitions, or the cost of running libraries
4) computers (an amazingly negligible cost)
5) the IT department (relatively insignificant)
6) scientific equipment costs (usually funded through grants)
7) elaborate sports stadia (at small, private, competitive liberal arts colleges, anyway)
8) munificent salaries for rank-and-file staff members
To some minor degree, it is cost-transference (scholarships for incredibly gifted or severely economically disadvantaged students funded by high tuition for wealthy-but-academically-marginal students)
But that's really only a fractional part of it.
Also, there is some new building, but in my experience, typically funded by wealthy alumni and donors.
I don't think it takes a Ph.D. (though we have any number of them here) to work out the rest.
In 1970, I graduated from SUNY Binghamton - debt free. My parents didn't have much money but tuition, room, and board was about $1500 per year. They were able to pay this amount without too much hardship. SUNY Binghamton has been named for several years in a row by Kiplingers Magazine as one of the best values in public education. Tuition, room, and board there is now about $19,000 per year. This increase is so far beyond the rate of inflation that it's preposterous - and SUNY is one of the better values. At a time when we need a more educated populace than ever it is more and more difficult for young people to get an education. Something definitely needs to be done about it. Making community college free to lower and middle class students is definitely a step in the right direction.
A Promise or a Threat?As I've said before, right-wing Republicans largely control the media, and I think the choice of words that we see in news stories systematically reflects that because they are masters of "meme transmission."
Obama, whom they hate with passionate racist fervor, has actually issued only an inconceivably few vetoes, to date, in his term in office (two, actually, vastly fewer than Bush). So to suggest that he is somehow "veto-crazy" and "threatening" is simply insane.
Nevertheless, every single mainstream media news headline I've seen has described Obama's declaration that he would not sign certain (incredibly destructive) legislation, not as a "statement" or a "promise" -- but always as a "threat." The meme is clearly that Obama is scary and threatening, which is exactly what the Republicans have been feeding their racist base since the beginning of his presidency.
Now, is this strictly my imagination? The universal decision to use the word, "threat," clearly is not, but is that the natural and necessary word to use, and the only possible choice? It may be my sensitivity to the systematic deliberate use of memes by Republicans, but has anyone else noticed or been bothered by this? Just curious to have your reactions.
Lisa wrote: "In 1970, I graduated from SUNY Binghamton - debt free. My parents didn't have much money but tuition, room, and board was about $1500 per year. They were able to pay this amount without too much ha..."I personally think that all undergraduate education should be free to students, and fully government-subsidized, but that the student's eligibility for admission to a university should be based on credentials. This is widely practiced in Europe (many countries have free university education even for their foreigh students) -- but also, in a great many non-European countries: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_e...
Obviously, this will never sell in the United States, because restricting access to the better colleges and universities to wealthy students, primarily, is part of the agenda of maintaining the class hierarchy (which is also part of the reason for "legacy" admissions of barely-competent students to schools like Yale and Harvard). Gee, I wonder... can anyone think of a president who attended Yale and the Harvard Business School who might not have seemed to be a genius? Just wondering... Of course, it also would never sell because Republicans not only don't want to fund post-secondary education, but most of them would like to "privatize" education entirely. They hate educating the poor and middle class, even at the elementary school level, and generally believe that no one should be entitled to an education unless that person's family can pay for it.
Obama's proposal to make community college free is definitely a "step in the right direction" (as you say, Lisa), but it is a step I think the Republicans will resist with insane fervor -- and even so, it's an inadequate step that still maintains class stratification. Obama is definitely to be championed for proposing it, and if he somehow accomplished it, I would deem it a miracle and an act worthy of investigation by whatever Vatican group it is that determines eligibility for sainthood... but I'm afraid the battle we're actually going to be fighting is to prevent further defunding of public elementary and high schools.
Mark, I would use the word "threaten" in describing what Obama has said, or what his spokespeople have said. IT is the correct word, and it has no hidden meaning. Even though the owners of the media are rightwing, i.e. Comcast owning NBC and MSNBC, the people on the air on those networks generally do not reflect that point of view. Where I think you can see their influence is how they got rid of Keith Olbermann and have kept Ed out of prime time - and don't repeat his show (which is on the network here on the West Coast at 2pm, so I am sure it has a small audience).Professional reporters will not write, or report, in ways that twist the news, at least most won't. It just isn't their nature.
Sometimes you can see the effect of ownership changes. Look at the Washington Post. Not long after it was sold to Amazon's owner, who is very conservative, it started losing many of its big name reporters. There has been a complete turnover of many of their blogs. In its editorial pages it has gone from being a middle of the road paper to a right-wing paper, sometimes carrying columns by people who are close to being jokes because of their extreme, or disproven, views. Washington now has two right-wing newspapers, unfortunately. The Post still has quite a few good reporters, and many will stay there because they want to be in Washington - or have to be (i.e. the spouse has a better job, or they have family obligations), and there aren't that many really good reporting jobs anywhere since so many newspapers have cut back.
Although there are individual exceptions, the only network that purposely and consistently twists the news - even editing videos to change the meaning of what a person says - is Fox.
Mark wrote: Obama's proposal to make community college free is definitely a "step in the right direction" (as you say, Lisa), but it is a step I think the Republicans will resist with insane fervor
New Jersey already has a program that lets students in the top 15% of their high school class attend community college for free.
http://www.njstars.net/
New Jersey already has a program that lets students in the top 15% of their high school class attend community college for free.
http://www.njstars.net/
Somewhat depending on the school, kids who are in the top 15% of their classes - and cannot afford college - probably have fairly good chances of getting scholarships to cover at least part of their college expenses. Top students may well get 100%.Like everything else, it is those below the 15% who really need the help.
Dan wrote: "Somewhat depending on the school, kids who are in the top 15% of their classes - and cannot afford college - probably have fairly good chances of getting scholarships to cover at least part of thei..."Students at my college (who were typically within the top 15%, but not necessarily affluent) did get pretty comprehensive financial aid packages (combinations of scholarship money, grants, work study and loans), but the financial aid office reported increasing difficulty in assembling these packages, with the result that the percentage of affluent (or international) students, who paid full-freight, steadily increased. (I sat on the admissions committee a few times, and so I was privy to discussions involving concern about our "identity" as a good private college "not just for the wealthy").
I've been retired since 2001, and I haven't been in touch, but my default assumption is that the situation would have continued to deteriorate. I do know that early retirees' guarantees of certain kinds of continuing insurance coverage were reneged upon on the grounds of "financial exigency."
Dan wrote: "Mark, I would use the word "threaten" in describing what Obama has said, or what his spokespeople have said. IT is the correct word, and it has no hidden meaning. Even though the owners of the medi..."Dan - Thank you for your well-informed insights, and I'm certain that reporters of your generation were educated to be scrupulous in the ways that you've described. But I do have to wonder if (partly because, as you report, many excellent non-conservative reporters have been forced out of papers like the Washington Post), the culture hasn't changed (if not explicitly, then at least in virtue of some measure of self-censorship).
I know that, as a scientist with no particular agenda and a commitment to high standards, I would still often consciously "shade" my research papers or grant proposals to reflect the (often-transient) preoccupation with certain paradigms and prevailing buzzwords within the discipline. I'm not even sure I was always conscious of this. It does not seem to me unreasonable to suppose that other professionals, especially in a competitive business with a declining job market, would do the same. I always represented my work accurately, but the words I chose were designed to maximize the prospect that my research would be published, or that my grant proposal would be approved. Why would reporters not do this?
There is a controversy going on here in Oregon about a story in the Portland newspaper a couple of days ago about a proposal in the legislature to raise the state minimum wage (currently $9.25/hour) to $15. The story implies that it will have little benefit. Not true.Read about it here: http://progressiveamericanthought.blo...
Mark, they just don't think that way. Most of them are under too much pressure to be too clever. They are trying to report a story, and many times - as this controversy I refer to above shows - they don't know enough to tell the story correctly. More problems come from that than from anything else. And journalism students often do not really have a very good education. When I was hiring reporters I ignored their j-school stuff. I would quiz them about politics, geography, geo-politics, economics, etc. I wanted to know if they knew anything worthwhile because they soon would have to deal with many complex subjects never covered in j-school. As it turned out, many of the best ones didn't major in journalism.
I am just astonished how little people know today about almost anything outside their own little world.
Now, if you want to read the clever writing done by some who really are manipulating, you have to read National Review, and publications like that.
One parent of a high school senior told me that Germany is offering tuition-free education even to foreigners. Community college used to be tuition-free in California (there may have been some fees), and even the state universities were very cheap, but after the Republicans cut taxes, we started charging more tuition and fees. Like some of the other contributors, I didn't have to pay for college. I had an Illinois State scholarship and a Northwestern scholarship for my undergraduate degree and a Ford Fellowship for my graduate degrees. When I left school at thirty, I was broke but not in debt. On another topic, one problem with Obama's continuing to discuss how we can be united, Lisa, is it gives the Republicans the incentive to make him look like a divider. They will pass the bills that they know he will veto and then blame him for not cooperating with them. I prefer the tough Obama who called out the Republicans for hero-worshipping Putin. In fact, that comment and his "I won both campaigns" comment were my favorite parts of the speech.
Mary, the Republicans call Obama out on everything that he does. He has to do what he thinks is right and try to make as much progress as possible. I liked those two parts of his speech that you cite also but I guess he feels that he has to at least try to appeal to the country as a whole. If he has to veto bad bills - which he also said in his address that he would - so be it.
Presidents in the past often vetoed bills passed by Congress. Carter vetoed bills passed by a Democratic Congress. Truman vetoed the Taft-Hartley Act (which created the "Right-to-Work" laws) and it was passed over his veto. I've never understood why Democratic Congresses haven't repealed that Act.In any case, the only reason anyone is making anything of Obama threatening to veto some bills is that there isn't much to make something of, and, memories being so short - and knowledge of history being so thin - they think this is something unusual. And, of course, anything Obama says or does will be criticized.
You're right, Dan and Lisa, whatever Obama does or says will be attacked. I couldn't figure out why forget-the-bottom-47%-corporations-are-people-my-friend Mitt Romney had suddenly become a populist, but then there was a Republican on Bill Maher's Friday show also criticizing Obama for the income gap. Maher pointed out that it's the only thing they can find to criticize. The unemployment rate is down, the Market has reached record highs, and gas prices are low, so the Republicans, who have rejected all of Obama's proposals for raising middle-class income and decreasing the income gap between the top 1% and the rest of us, are now suddenly concerned about how much income inequality has grown under Obama's administration.
I can't the name of that Republican on Maher's show Friday night but he was a real a-hole. Almost everything he said was wrong, or a lie, and he did it with an arrogant, superior, look on his face. He had no sense of humor and acted like he was angry. He should be angry. He is wrong about everything. I thought he made the show a bit unpleasant - not as lighthearted as usual.
Dan wrote: "I can't the name of that Republican on Maher's show Friday night but he was a real a-hole. Almost everything he said was wrong, or a lie, and he did it with an arrogant, superior, look on his face...."Republicans seem to specialize in attracting arrogant, smug, mendacious a**holes with narcissistic personality disorder and anger management problems. Some of them do succeed in concealing it better than this particular choleric and humorless specimen did, though. I'll be curious to know who it was, if the name later occurs to you. (Although they're largely interchangeable, so I'm not sure it really matters. :))
ETA:
I actually think they're cloned in a toxic waste factory in an undisclosed location, the gates adorned with twin statues of Ayn Rand and Scrooge McDuck. This is only a preliminary theory, though: it may actually be Snidely Whiplash, rather than McDuck.
Mary wrote: "You're right, Dan and Lisa, whatever Obama does or says will be attacked. I couldn't figure out why forget-the-bottom-47%-corporations-are-people-my-friend Mitt Romney had suddenly become a populi...are now suddenly concerned about how much income inequality has grown under Obama's administration"Yes, Mary, I see them rather in the light of violent muggers, who then petulantly complain about their victims' champion's terrible failure to control crime in the streets... though, on the other hand, that may be an invidious comparison unfair to muggers, who don't actually victimize hundreds of millions of people at a time. :)
Dan wrote: "Presidents in the past often vetoed bills passed by Congress. Carter vetoed bills passed by a Democratic Congress. Truman vetoed the Taft-Hartley Act (which created the "Right-to-Work" laws) ... and knowledge of history being so thin..."I think that's exactly right, Dan! Americans' knowledge of history is currently so thin... that you would need a micrometer (or possibly an electron microscope) to measure it. So Faux and their ilk can get away with mischaracterizing any action Obama takes, and basically "making s**t up," with absolute impunity.
Dan wrote: "Mark, they just don't think that way. Most of them are under too much pressure to be too clever. They are trying to report a story, and many times - as this controversy I refer to above shows - the..."Dan - I'm sure you know them much better than I, but I'm not sure it actually requires cleverness, or even conscious attention. I may have engaged in more deliberative lexical strategizing (mea maxima culpa), but I think one tends to absorb the prevailing memes and buzzwords deemed to be acceptable within the officially-sanctioned narrative (political or scientific) somewhat osmotically, and without necessarily giving thought to the process. It's easy to cite political examples, but in the realm of science, it's currently effectively impossible to secure a tenure-track appointment in quantum physics, if you don't subscribe to string theory (which may well be correct, but is in fact an effectively unfalsifiable claim that is not experimentally testable, so it isn't a "theory").* Now, irrespective of where this argument has gone (I'm not a physicist, but my ex was), I think the fact that an unfalsifiable claim can effectively crowd out all other positions (or "superpositions" :)) even in the hardest of hard sciences, does bear comparison with the fact that a set of wholly mendacious claims about the economy, about the effects of certain educational and healthcare strategies, about the reality of global warming -- even about the age of the Earth -- can effectively crowd out rationality in reporting to so great an extent, that non-conservative reporters cannot continue to be employed, even at the Washington Post. So even rational, scrupulous reporters would, I think, if they wanted to avoid unemployment:
1) Consciously or unconsciously engage in self-censorship to avoid violating the dominant narrative (the conservative one)
and
2) Take suggestions from their editors with respect to those subjects it might or might not be advisable to report upon.
Honestly, Dan, there are a great many reporters and commentators for whom I harbor enormous respect and admiration, but I still do not see why my argument would not be true. Scientists are extremely busy and operate "under enormous pressure," as well, but they also want to continue to be employed. There were certain arguments that I would not have been well-advised to make within my own field (though I sometimes stupidly did, anyway). But I had tenure. What reporter has tenure?
* The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next
-----
By the way, I agree with you about The National Review, but it's currently less brilliantly creative in its tortured perversions of logic than it used to be under Buckley. :)
At most major newspapers, the reporters are in the newspaper guild. That usually means they cannot be fired without cause. Of course, most newspapers have been laying so many reporters - which they can do - that it is easy to put someone on the layoff list just to get rid of them. I saw it done in the corporate world. However, I know it is hard to grasp, but in most newspapers and newsrooms today there isn't a lot of editing. There isn't a lot of top-down monitoring. This has become more the case as newspapers have gone to the 24-hour cycle with their websites. Things are going on to websites with very little supervision. The papers don't have the staff.
The news hole in the papers themselves has shrunk as reporting staffs have shrunk. Only a few stories get much space in most papers.
Where I think you are on to something is how ideas get into our culture and become accepted as facts. Or some sayings are heard so much that they aren't challenged. Think about how many times we have heard the national debt is going to bankrupt our children or grandchildren, or something to that effect. That's been said since I was a kid and the national debt was puny. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now, but you hear it all the time.
Ronald Reagan expanded the economy. You hear how great he was at that all the time. Richard Nixon was better. I just looked at the economic records of all the presidents back to Kennedy and Reagan was no better than anyone except GW Bush. It's just that he helped a lot of very rich people become far more wealthy. That's why he is a hero and saint to some. But he screwed everyone else, and you would never know that from everyday conversations and news stories.
The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
A Gift Upon the Shore (other topics)Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces (other topics)
Drift (other topics)
Drift (other topics)
What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815 - 1848 (other topics)
More...
Ben Bradlee's relationship with Kennedy brings up another problem. News media folks should not cover personal friends, or they should at least announce that they are friends with the people they are covering. I appreciate that Chris Hayes on MSNBC used to mention that his wife worked for Obama. We should know those things. And if news media people don't like certain celebrities or they are having a beef with them, we should know that as well.
I actually don't think Fox and MSNBC are the problem. Smart people know what their biases are. The problem is with the so-called mainstream media who are supposed to be neutral. Some people still think the mainstream media leans left, but anyone paying attention would recognize (I believe) that stations like ABC and CNN are really more conservative. Why wouldn't they be? They are owned by corporations.