Re: claim that I said Obama could do something he plainly couldn't, re: Money for the homeless. Quoting above:
Second, Obama can't just "order this" by fiat. But he IS the architect of the budget he _can_ propose legislation...and if he couldn't sell this to the country when you have several million people who are homeless or fast heading for that situation, he is a total amateur.
I thought it was a given that I meant "he should pass an immediate assistance bill in the House and Senate". It wasn't, so I made the above clarification. No one seems to have recognized this.
In Canada, the main reason it took so long to get welfare was because McKenzie King, the main Prime Minister in that period (and who had a solid lock on power from 1935-1948) was scared of the banks. The people had no issues with voting for the measure. In fact, war veterans from WW I had organized a huge protest in 1935 (thousands started marching toward Ottawa, they were stopping Manitoba). That was an important reason why King was elected with a large majority: people were sympathetic to the veterans' claims that their sacrifices in the Great War entitled them to some help from the government during hardship beond their control. The previous gov't had attacked the people who took part in this protest while negotiating with the leaders.
1930's and 40's Canada was not afaik noticeably less conservative than current America. Barak Obama has unprecedented personal popularity (80%) and even his policies have strong support (51%). So I cannot understand why if there is a need, and he's a community organizer who knows the pernicious effects of poverty first hand, why he hasn't done this. He has the political capital. The experience of other nations proves that welfare per se is not an irresponsible or financially destructive measure. Especially welfare during an economic catastrophe.
If he's the goodhearted man you claim, why has he not acted? There are no substantial barriers in his way. Politics is the "art of the possible". I do not see why relief for the people in tent cities is such an implausible and scorn-worthy proposition. Why should this not be the easiest measure in the world to pass right now?
For the cost of 1/15 of all the money he futilely gave to the banks,he could address this problem immediately. It would have a strong stimulus effect since it would all end up getting spent. In BC, 84,000 people with disabilities receive government assistance equal to between 2/3 and 4/5 of the amount I suggested for the homeless folk. The cost of this is roughly 2% of the provincial budget. This covers 2% of the population. In America, 2% of YOUR population would be 60 million. This is not a "Santa dropping money off the back of his sleigh" scenario. It is nothing like that.
Or am I simply grossly misreading Americans and the consensus is that the people who are living in tent cities deserve that fate and deserve no assistance? Even reactionary Canadians in the 30's and 40's didn't feel that way, so if I am in error, it is a reasonable one.
(Canadians used to be so conservative that we: (a) Interned our Japanese during the war, too (b) treated Francophones as second class citizens in their own province (don't ask about outside of it!) because they were Catholic and weren't descended from British stock (c) had SERIOUS protests about forming our own navy because as a patriotic British Imperial Dominion, we should be giving Britain money to expand its navy to protect us (d) felt that the British monarch was our ruler and anyone who didn't like this or didn't want to support Britain was a bad Canadian)
Helping the destitute
Second, Obama can't just "order this" by fiat. But he IS the architect of the budget he _can_ propose legislation...and if he couldn't sell this to the country when you have several million people who are homeless or fast heading for that situation, he is a total amateur.
I thought it was a given that I meant "he should pass an immediate assistance bill in the House and Senate". It wasn't, so I made the above clarification. No one seems to have recognized this.
In Canada, the main reason it took so long to get welfare was because McKenzie King, the main Prime Minister in that period (and who had a solid lock on power from 1935-1948) was scared of the banks. The people had no issues with voting for the measure. In fact, war veterans from WW I had organized a huge protest in 1935 (thousands started marching toward Ottawa, they were stopping Manitoba). That was an important reason why King was elected with a large majority: people were sympathetic to the veterans' claims that their sacrifices in the Great War entitled them to some help from the government during hardship beond their control. The previous gov't had attacked the people who took part in this protest while negotiating with the leaders.
1930's and 40's Canada was not afaik noticeably less conservative than current America. Barak Obama has unprecedented personal popularity (80%) and even his policies have strong support (51%). So I cannot understand why if there is a need, and he's a community organizer who knows the pernicious effects of poverty first hand, why he hasn't done this. He has the political capital. The experience of other nations proves that welfare per se is not an irresponsible or financially destructive measure. Especially welfare during an economic catastrophe.
If he's the goodhearted man you claim, why has he not acted? There are no substantial barriers in his way. Politics is the "art of the possible". I do not see why relief for the people in tent cities is such an implausible and scorn-worthy proposition. Why should this not be the easiest measure in the world to pass right now?
For the cost of 1/15 of all the money he futilely gave to the banks,he could address this problem immediately. It would have a strong stimulus effect since it would all end up getting spent. In BC, 84,000 people with disabilities receive government assistance equal to between 2/3 and 4/5 of the amount I suggested for the homeless folk. The cost of this is roughly 2% of the provincial budget. This covers 2% of the population. In America, 2% of YOUR population would be 60 million. This is not a "Santa dropping money off the back of his sleigh" scenario. It is nothing like that.
Or am I simply grossly misreading Americans and the consensus is that the people who are living in tent cities deserve that fate and deserve no assistance? Even reactionary Canadians in the 30's and 40's didn't feel that way, so if I am in error, it is a reasonable one.
(Canadians used to be so conservative that we:
(a) Interned our Japanese during the war, too
(b) treated Francophones as second class citizens in their own province (don't ask about outside of it!) because they were Catholic and weren't descended from British stock
(c) had SERIOUS protests about forming our own navy because as a patriotic British Imperial Dominion, we should be giving Britain money to expand its navy to protect us
(d) felt that the British monarch was our ruler and anyone who didn't like this or didn't want to support Britain was a bad Canadian)