Our Contentious System, Part Two/A

Our economic system is highly contentious, and some want, and frankly we've been heading toward, what is commonly called a "dog-eat-dog" system with few if any rules, where some people get an advantage and exploit that advantage to the fullest for personal gain, no matter who gets hurt in the process. If someone would give them money for their mother, they would sell her in a heartbeat; after all, "she only raised me, but what has she done for me lately?" The people who are more than likely to want this kind of system, dating back to the beginnings of mankind, are more than likely well off, with a bunch of psychological problems needing psychiatric attention as soon as possible, before they either destroy everyone, or we turn and destroy them in self defense. They have superegos that need a constant "fix," just like a drug user. The only things is, in modern America, we lock drug users up, but we let the egomaniacs run wild, destroying our lives, our country and perhaps the world, and some folks even want to reward these egomaniac misfits with tax breaks and tax cuts!

The country and parts of the world have allowed the egomaniacs/super rich to rise to a point of power that is now difficult to roll back. The Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed them to use their virtually unlimited resources to keep them in control, no matter who is president, or which party is in control of Congress, although they hope for the far more compliant Republicans, most of whom seem more than willing to do their bidding. These superegos are so spoiled, they now see what was once moderation as being "socialist" or even "communist," but they need that "fix." As I've said here many times before, most Americans want businesses to succeed, but we want "success, not excess," and we've seen lots and lots of excess in more recent times. Since the continued rise of the superegos and super rich, the country has been in decline, which is the opposite of what they tell us, "Give us tax cuts, less regulation and everything will by okay." Nonsense! This has been going on for over three decades, we're worse off, by far. Occupy Wall Street and unions have brought the inequality issue front and center, although it has currently lost some steam. If the system continues to allow income to flow from everyone else to the top, only bloodshed will change things.  They are not going to give up power quietly. Look at how they're trying to destroy Obama, and he's basically supportive of the system. You must toe the line in giving them a total free hand, or else. Unions, Occupy Wall Street, and others are trying to get other Americans to pay attention, but I'm afraid until these other Americans too fall under the yoke of the superegos, they may not listen, and it will definitely be too late then. The worst thing is to think nothing can be done about the situation. Remember the five dollar a month bank fee by Bank of America that was stopped a few months ago by common action by everyday citizens? Undoubtedly some, like sheep going to the slaughter, were willing to pay and accept their fate. WE can make a difference. It is a contentious system, BE CONTENTIOUS. Trust me, the big boys are NOT worried about YOU and they are more than willing to be contentious.

We had some fairly tough regulation put into effect by President Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, and by his distant cousin, President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat. I just looked out the window and Mother Earth was still there, and history shows that the rich were still the rich and prosperity was much more widespread, helped along by the regulations of the above presidents and others. One thing has changed in the last few decades, the rich are MUCH richer, and the country is in decline. The emergency bell is ringing folks!     

More in "Part Two/B"

WORD HISTORY:
Hold-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain, but many believe it to be from Indo European. Old Germanic had "haldanan," which meant "to grasp, to keep." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "healdan," with the same basic meaning, but with the added "keep watch over," a meaning which then went to the closely related "behold" (see note below ^). This then became "holden," before the modern form. The noun form developed from the verb with the meaning "grip/grasp" ("get a good hold on the desk before you lift it"), and also "fort," now more common in the compound "stronghold." The noun form used for storage in planes or ships, as in "ship's hold," is not from the same word, in spite of the similar meaning, but rather it is closely related to "hole." Common in the other Germanic languages; these are verbal forms: German has "halten," Low German has "hoolden," Dutch has "houden" (not an error, there is no "l"), West Frisian has "hâlde,"  Danish has "holde," Norwegian has "halda/holde" (depending upon dialect), Icelandic has "halda," and Swedish has "hålla" (no error here either, there is no "d").

^ For the history of the related "behold," see:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/06/english-its-closest-relatives-part-two.html  

Unpatriotic-Their Allegiance Is To Wealth

This was first published in June 2012, but now, in 2017, Trump and Republicans will begin a drive to give big cut taxes to billionaires, with likely consequences for average and poor folks when the budget cuts come.


In case you missed this story, there is a growing number of wealthy "Americans" giving up their American citizenship, often to avoid paying taxes. Since the administration of George W. Bush U.S. tax officials have made an effort to locate Americans living overseas who make or hold large sums to collect taxes on their incomes.* Last year nearly 1800 of these very wealthy folks gave up their American citizenship in Switzerland.** Many have become "stateless," as they are not citizens of ANY country. And some people dare to call Occupy Wall Street protesters "unpatriotic." Reports suggest there are more than 4500 of these stateless super wealthy folks worldwide, worth nearly 6.5 trillion; that's with a "t." Understand, there are many Americans living overseas for a wide variety of reasons: military service, a spouse and children of military personnel serving overseas, government positions, business positions, education, etc. Do not confuse these people with the super wealthy, unpatriotic former Americans.

* It is complicated, but hey, this is about taxes! From what I can come up with, Americans overseas earning over about $100,000 are those who get hit, but even then, there are credits deducted for paying taxes to other countries. In other words, if you live in another country, make a half million, for example, you may pay little or no American tax because you paid tax in country XYZ, or to several countries, as some of the super wealthy have homes in numerous countries.

** You don't think they went to Switzerland because of secret Swiss bank accounts, do you? Ah c'mon now! You mean they'd try to hide money? Haha Laws passed in the 2000s have pried open some of these "secret" accounts, however. 

WORD HISTORY:
Patriot-This word traces back to Indo European “phater/phter/phaeter/pater,” which meant "father." This then gave its Greek offspring "pater," which then spawned "patris," "fatherland," which then produced "patriotes," meaning "from the same country." Latin borrowed the word as "patriota," "a countryman." This gave French "compatriot" and the shorter "patriote," both with the meaning "fellow countryman." English borrowed the word from French in the late 1500s, when the word was already developing the additional sense "loyal supporter of one's country."

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part Fifteen

This was first published in May 2012


"Battle Over Budgets" Part Two/Austerity 

The huge deficits of the 2000s added trillions to the collective national debt by the time of the 2008 crisis. When voters elected Democrat Barack Obama as President, his economic team wanted a major stimulus bill passed by Congress to counter the economic decline. This was in contrast to many Republicans who wanted more tax cuts, naturally with much of the money going to the wealthiest Americans, and to their basic hands off of the economy beliefs. For the administration, with no money, there was only one way to get that money, DEBT. In the end a combination of spending proposals and tax cuts were enacted. Gradually, although faster than I thought possible, the economic plunge halted and the economy stabilized. The problem ever since has been, now what?* (See Part 14 for the headwinds that have also limited the recovery.)

Conservatives in America and the world over have been arguing that budget deficits are keeping the economy from expanding and that the tremendous debts will bring a day of reckoning.** Conservative governments in Europe have implemented "austere budgets" to cope with their respective debts, with much of the pain falling on those less then wealthy individuals and families. These policies have been especially implemented in Greece, Spain, and to some degree, in France and Britain. If you're an American and this all sounds familiar, it should, as Republicans, led by conservative Congressman Paul Ryan, have laid out plans to deal with the deficits, largely at the expense of everyone, but the wealthy, to whom he wants to give MORE tax cuts! These folks have used their policy ideas as an almost slogan of  "don't punish the job creators." They have attacked unions, attempting to destroy or to limit the labor movement. They have tried to "fix" unbroken election laws, thus limiting potential Democratic turnout. Not only that, but they want to remove all inheritance taxes*** so that huge estates can be passed on to the chosen few who may or may not have ever worked to earn any of it. So much for a meritocracy, and the creation of a true aristocracy. It seems to the world's conservatives that "austerity" is for everyone else, not for the wealthy or their corporate entities. Sacrifice is for everyone else, not for them, or perhaps better said in another slogan like, "Everyone else sacrifice for us."

The Occupy Wall Street movement has brought increased attention to the income disparity in America, and spinoffs in Europe and elsewhere ("Blockupy") have taken the ball and run with it, often to the cries of "We are the 99%." Protests in Europe have been large and frequent, with occasional outbreaks of violence. Recent elections in Greece and France have produced dramatic results, especially in France, where a socialist was elected president. In Greece the situation has been much more polarized, with a new government being in limbo. New elections have been called. In local elections in Germany, conservatives have lost ground, making the next national election suspenseful. The common thread seems to be that less than wealthy people aren't just rolling over for the wealthy interests, but they are taking to the streets, often led by the younger generations, and, when elections come, they are voting their own self interests. You have to start some place, and this is the signal "We aren't going to take it anymore!" Will it work? Now the discouraging part; probably not; at least not in the way some want it to work. Some countries have unrealistic spending levels, but the necessary changes will have input from those to be affected the most, and that's all we can expect in true democracies. People will not allow the wealthy and their allies to dictate how much they will cut others, while taking more money in tax cuts for themselves; money they don't need.

These movements have a chance to get this country and other nations of the world back from wealthy and corporate interests, but they must court the middle classes. Anarchists and extremism will only scare the very people who are needed to enact positive change.
       
 * Federal Reserve policy has also been very involved in the economy, but I'll try to keep this already complex subject limited.

** Just an observation here, as American conservatives didn't say much about all of the debt accumulated during the Reagan years; for instance, when the "Gipper's" economic team said "deficits don't matter." Nor did they rave or rant when George W. Bush was in office and debts climbed into the trillions.

*** Republicans are working at both the federal and state levels to remove estate taxes, as there are separate taxes at these levels.

WORD HISTORY:
Austere-The ultimate origins of this word are unclear, although some believe it to be Indo European, but it traces back to Greek "austeros,"^ which had the notion of "harsh," which seems to have also been applied food and drink that were bitter; that is, "harsh tasting." Latin borrowed the word from Greek as "austerus," with the same basic meaning. Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited the word as "austere," and English borrowed the word from French in the early 1300s. The modern meaning still retains the notion of "harsh, severe," but it can also mean "plain, simple," usually in terms of "showiness," but this retains the "harsh" notion, as in "deprived of, restricted in adornment." 

^ Greek is an Indo European language related to English, but further down the family tree.

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part Four

This was first published in late 2011, with some editing/additions 3/11/2016.


"Have We Lost Our Idealism?"

The "Great Depression" brought Americans together; unfortunately, it was often in a soup kitchen line, but it also made middle class Americans relate to those below them, rather than to those above them. Just a few years before, as Americans chased money and class status, they had related more to those above, as they too desired to get rich, and quickly. The economic collapse not only thwarted the hopes of many of achieving great wealth, it often reversed any economic gains made by some Americans. It also showed how ruthless and greedy some Americans really were. Many of the "haves" didn't reach some pinnacle, stop, and see who they could help. No, they kept going, crushing anyone standing in their way of accumulating even more money they couldn't spend in a hundred lifetimes or more.* By the late 1930s along came a movie that seemed to capture the essence of the times, "Mr Smith Goes To Washington." Instead of a pompous Donald Trump sitting as king, and issuing statements of  "You're fired," the movie appealed to the great idealism of Americans for fairness and the offering of help to others. It strongly condemned selfishness and greed, and the accompanying corruption. If you haven't seen this movie, or if you haven't seen it in a while, please watch it. It may just restore some of your faith in what this country can be. The movie uses the young to help bring down corruption, and today's Occupy Wall Street movements have many young people involved. They aren't perfect, but the task they face against entrenched interests and corruption is every bit as daunting as the interests and corrupt individuals who tried to trample Jimmy Stewart's character in the movie. Not all Americans have lost their idealism to make this a country and a world of more fairness. Similar movements are also present in many other parts of the world, and indeed, international cooperation will be needed to bring about the necessary changes to move the world forward, and not to let it slide back into the Dark Ages and feudalism, with the likes of Donald Trump living in a castle, with the rest of us groveling as his serfs. If that image scares you, it should!

* My progressive brethren don't always like to hear this, but Herbert Hoover was not one of those who spent his life trying to accumulate more wealth. Unlike many who "claim" religion, Hoover actually took his religious beliefs (he was a Quaker) seriously. His religion espoused that if you were successful, you were obligated to "give back" to society. Besides donating money to causes, Hoover entered public service, first in the Wilson administration, then in administering food programs in Europe to help prevent mass starvation of Europeans during and after World War One. While a firm opponent of communism, Hoover tried to keep people in the then developing Soviet Union from starving. I don't recall his exact words, but when asked about helping people in a Bolshevik country, he answered something to the effect that he didn't ask their political beliefs; they were human beings. There are not many of us who would say something like that, certainly not the likes of a Ted Cruz. Hoover then served as Secretary of Commerce in the Harding and Coolidge administrations before becoming president. This high achievement proved to be his undoing in terms of public admiration, as the Great Depression severely damaged his reputation. Of course, he made some unwise policy choices and he was too ideological on some issues, like opposing direct aid to states to help the unemployed and needy,* and even when he reversed course, his reputation had been so sullied, he got no credit for it. Later it was found that Hoover had given away much of his money during his presidency, and he did mobilize Americans to give record amounts to charities during those desperate times. He did NOT accept his salary as president. I may not agree with everything he did, but I give credit where I feel it is due. It's not good to "beat up on" those who may have opposed your ideas, but who then come to embrace those ideas. Welcome those who join you, for in that case, you have won the argument.

* Hoover's ideology certainly clung at times to "the old ways," and in the case with aid to the needy, his ideas were far too optimistic and idealistic, as the problem of hunger during the Great Depression was so huge, the traditional aid by the individual states and charities was overwhelmed. His refusal to admit to that fact seriously damaged his image, and indeed, gave the public a new image of the former humanitarian Hoover, as a man who would let people starve. It was an image that lasted for the rest of his life with many Americans, although at least a few softened their stance against him, over time. Hoover did finally admit to himself the need for direct federal aid to the needy, and signed it into law, but the damage to his reputation had been done.

WORD HISTORY:
Heat-Closely related to "hot," this word's ultimate origins are uncertain, but it could be a Germanic invention, or borrowing from a non-Indo European source, or, as some believe, a variation of Indo European. Old Germanic had "haitijo/haitija," which meant "heat." This gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "haetu/hait," which also meant "heat." By Middle English it had become "hete," before the modern spelling. Note: Old English also had "haetha," which meant "hot weather." The verb form, meaning "to heat, to make hot, to become hot," traces back to Old Germanic "haitijan(an)." This gave Anglo-Saxon "haetan," with the same meanings. German has the noun "Hitze," and the verb "heizen" (the "z" is pronounced as "ts," as in the ending of the word "hits"); some Low German dialects have the noun "Hett," and the verb "hette;" Dutch has the noun "hitte," and the verb "(ver)hitten," which is used in the figurative sense, "stir emotions" (Dutch and Frisian now use forms of "warm" to mean "to heat something"); Frisian has "hjittens," Icelandic has "hita," Danish has "hede" (often in compounds), Norwegian has "het/hete," and Swedish has the noun "hetta."

See more at the history of "hot:" http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/12/allied-leaders-of-world-war.html

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War?

This was first published in late 2011.

Part One:
Protests and revolutions of various types have broken out in many parts of the world. In America, once in the forefront of revolution and change, reactionary forces have gotten a grip on the country, the likes of which hasn't been seen since before the Great Depression, and the way we're heading, it may date back into the post-Civil War era. When Barack Obama took office, mainly right wing elements mobilized in protests against many of his proposals, although he took certain aspects of these plans from Republicans (such as Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts), or he continued inherited plans from the George W. Bush administration (bank and auto company bailouts). The protesters often declared they feared a "socialist" takeover of the country, and they seemed to believe every problem facing the country began with Barack Obama, although he hadn't been in office very long. The group was the Tea Party, and they waved tea bags and held mass rallies across the nation, acting at times as if they were the only patriotic Americans around. They had and have every right to do so, although I truly believe many are terribly misguided in aspects of their protests (more on this later), although they have some points, too. Business groups and allied right wing organizations run television ads about every 20 minutes telling Americans to be against anyone who would dare to support raising taxes on the wealthy and oil interests to help reduce the budget deficit. They use distortion (not just a right wing tactic, but heavily so nowadays) to scare Americans into believing tax increases being floated are for everybody, and not just for the rich. The whole process smells....badly! The budget process smells badly, too, as I would say average Americans are overwhelmed by the numbers, and how those numbers are used: "Senator What's His Name wants to raise taxes by a trillion dollars!" The statement is true, but what is lacking is the context that the senator's plan is for ten years and he wants only high earners to pay the tax. Let's see... a trillion dollars divided by ten years is....don't tell me now, I can figure this out, but I need more fingers and toes. Darn! Okay, a hundred billion a year. Hell some of the greediest among us have made a bundle just in the time I've been typing this. All the while the assault on average Americans' living standards continues.

More recently, essentially left wing groups have gradually mobilized in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. They have camped out in parks and held rallies throughout the country protesting the tremendous, and growing, income disparity in America, and the takeover of the political system, and thus the economic and income distribution system, by the top 1% on the income scale (it's more than the top 1%, in my opinion). They have managed to focus attention on these problems, and while I believe them to be on the right track, there seems to be no true agenda to remedy the ills they are protesting. You can carry signs all day, every day, until hell freezes over, and camp out all you want, and it won't change the system, although you may come down with pneumonia; in fact, support for the protests may well have peaked, as outbreaks of violence in some locations have marred the image of the movement. If middle class Americans are afraid of the movement, it will NEVER fly. If it appears that the "I don't want them to make a nickle off of me," totally anti-business people are seen as being too influential a part of the movement, it will NEVER fly. Many unions have linked up with the group, but the original organizers (from what I understand) are leery of union leaders. My experience with unions and union people, and indeed most "unrich" Americans, is that they understand the need for businesses to make a profit. They are not against businesses making money, but they don't want to be gouged and they also want that money shared with workers in those businesses, and not just with independently wealthy investors and their money managers, the "sit on their ass class," as I call them.

WORD HISTORY:
Hoist-It "seems" this verb originated in Low German as nautical talk in reference to "hoisting;" that is, "raising," the sails of a ship (later also applied to raising a flag); the assumption by some is that it came from the sound made by the men exhaling while straining to raise the sails..."hissssss." The word spread through High German, and also into Dutch. English borrowed the word either from Low German or Dutch in the late 1400s as "hysse," then "hoise," and its past tense form, "hoised," came to be pronounced and spelled "hoist." The noun, meaning "a pulley," was derived from the verb. German and Low German have "hissen," Dutch has "hijsen," Danish has both "hisse" (borrowed from Low German "hissen") and "hejse" (borrowed from Dutch "hijsen"), Norwegian has "heise" (probably from Dutch) and Swedish has "hissa" (hoist/raise), probably from Low German. All of these languages interacted with one another in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea in trade and, at times, war. I could not find a form of the word in Frisian, which seems a bit odd, seeing that Low German and Dutch are geographically "right there" by Frisian, and the Frisians were seafarers, but it could have died out (let's face it, while not a totally obscure word in English, it's not exactly an every day word either). Also, I could not find a form in Icelandic, but "if" the word indeed originated in Low German, that is likely the reason... distance. It was borrowed into French and Italian, most likely from German, and even into Spanish, probably from Italian.

Greed Has Damaged The Country

Let's face some facts folks. We all have a certain amount of greed. The problem is, when the "haves" get almost total control of a political and economic system, they leave little but the crumbs for the remainder of society. Capitalism in its pure form is not about helping others, it's not about saving the sick or injured, it's not about helping to educate children, or to retrain workers, it's not about clean water, clean air or any other environmental concern. No, capitalism is about three things: MONEY, MONEY, and MONEY. This philosophy has now taken over America. It's been in the works since the days of the New Deal, when legislation put regulations on businesses, and later expanded even more, all with tremendous whining and foot stomping by many of the business interests and wealthy investors, even though these wealthy American remained, well, wealthy Americans. The way some of them whined, you'd have thought they wouldn't be able to buy their next meal. In the last three decades we've seen a roll back in protections for Americans, some made in the name of "competitiveness," but do any of you REALLY believe America can compete against countries where workers make a few bucks a day (if they're lucky), without cutting down American workers to that same level? Do you believe the country has benefited from these policies over the last few decades? If so, where? The gap in income disparity has grown to pre-Depression levels, as the wealthy have done VERY well, thank you, while most other Americans have seen declines or stagnation in income. All the while so called "commodity" prices have soared, even on basic food products, only damaging "unrich" Americans, and preventing any major economic recovery from taking hold. Remember folks, with these people, money trumps patriotism EVERY time.

I've heard it said several times on news programs lately, and no one has yet contradicted it; thus giving it credence, that the largest American companies have put more money into foreign countries than into their own country for the last thirty years. You want a job? Hey, go to some country where American business people have set up shop and agree to work for a pittance; you might have a chance. you might virtually starve to death, but to these people, hey so what?

We now have a major American political party, guess which one, orchestrating cuts to all sorts of government programs and to wages and benefits for America's dwindling middle class. Don't be fooled by the television and radio ads, folks. That's what this is about, cuts to middle class Americans, and the destruction of ANYONE daring to mention taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Folks, they don't call it "conservatism" because they want to empower middle and working class Americans again. They want to take the country back alright....way back! Pick any previous century. Now, a counter-balance has emerged, THANKFULLY! The recent demonstrations dubbed "Occupy Wall Street" has grown from the streets of New York City to many other places across the country, and it is expanding every day. President Obama came to the presidency with the slogan "change you can believe in." Ah, 'scuse me, where is it? The president missed the boat, and no matter how many times the Republicans virtually spit in his face, he went back for more! My mother used to say, "Don't be a glutton for punishment." The President needs to heed that advice, and he may well be heading in that direction, as he wants our votes again. The country needs leadership; leadership against the tremendous greed that is overwhelming us. The question is, is Obama up to the task?

WORD HISTORY:
Wall-This noun has an uncertain origin, although there are some theories connecting it to some Indo European roots, but I'll stick to what is essentially agreed upon. It goes back to Latin^ "vallus," which meant "stake, post." This then gave Latin "vallum;" that is, "a line of stakes forming a barrier, a wall, rampart." It seems to have been borrowed into West Germanic, an offspring of Old Germanic,^^ as "wallaz," with the same basic meaning, which then expanded to include "earthwork of stakes with dirt mounded against it as reinforcement;" thus a form of dam or dike. Old English had "weall," with the same meanings, but then expanded further to "inside and outside walls of a building." The noun later gave off a verb form, "weallian," meaning "to wall off something, to put a wall around." Both the noun and verb forms then became "wall," and have remained so ever since. Common in the other Germanic languages, but more so with the original "rampart, fortification, dike" meaning: German has "Wall" (for those learning German, it is "der" Wall), Low German Saxon has "Wäll/Wall," North Frisian, now almost extinct, has "wal," and Dutch too has "wal." The other Frisian dialects do not seem to use a form of the word any longer. Some West Germanic dialects passed along forms of the word to some North Germanic languages, and Swedish has "vall" and Norwegian has "voll." Danish has "val," which means "battlefield." Whether this comes from the same word, I don't know, but it could be tied to the "fortifications' meaning of the word.

^ Latin is an Indo European language related to English, but further down the family tree, although many English words trace back to Latin directly, or indirectly, mainly via French. Latin has also had major influences on many other European languages not direct offshoots of Latin itself. While Latin still lives on in religious circles, its usage is much diminished. It hasn't so much died out as evolved into Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and others.

^^ Old Germanic gave birth to three offspring: North Germanic, the ancestor of modern Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Faroese, and Icelandic; East Germanic, which once included Gothic, Burgundian, and Vandalic (the language of the Vandals), but all East Germanic languages have died out; and West Germanic, the ancestor of English, German, Low German, Dutch (including Flemish), Frisian, Afrikaans, and Yiddish.