Chomsky Describes US Domestic Policy in Two Words: 'Pure Savagery'!

signalmankenneth

Verified User
Published on Thursday, January 9, 2014 by Common Dreams

Chomsky Describes US Domestic Policy in Two Words: 'Pure Savagery'

Cuts to food stamps and jobless benefits predictable result of 'neoliberal assault' on American people

- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer

As Congress decides this week whether to re-institute emergency jobless benefits for millions of Americans and closes in on negotiations for a Farm Bill that could see billions of dollars cut out of food stamp programs, renowned activist and intellectual Noam Chomsky summed up the state of American politics in an interview Thursday in two words: "pure savagery."

"The refusal to provide very minimal living standards to people who are caught in this monstrosity — that's just pure savagery." –Noam Chomsky
"The refusal to provide very minimal living standards to people who are caught in this monstrosity — that's just pure savagery," Chomsky said during an interview with HuffPost Live. "There's no other word for it."

The Washington Post reports that current Farm Bill negotiations are calling for the elimination of roughly $9 billion in funding for food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next decade, "according to several aides familiar with the negotiations who are not authorized to speak publicly about the details."

The changes would decrease assistance for at least 800,000 households, with cuts of up to $90 per month. “That’s the last week of groceries for the month,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) told the Washington Post.

The GOP-controlled House had originally called for $40 billion in cuts and the Democratic-led Senate had originally called for $4 billion.

The negotiation, expected to wrap up by next week, arrives two months after U.S. lawmakers allowed a separate stimulus boost to SNAP to expire, cutting a universal $5 billion in funding that gouged food assistance for 47 million food stamp recipients, 49 percent of whom are children.

Meanwhile, last month Congress let expire emergency long-term jobless benefits for 1.3 million Americans, a "lifeline" for many who have been looking for jobs for an extended period of time and depended on those benefits to get by.

On Tuesday, the Senate just barely passed a vote to move ahead on a bill that would restore those jobless benefits. But even if it the actual bill passes in the Senate, it will then head to the Republican-led House of Representatives, where it is likely to face strong opposition.

"Inequality has been a very serious problem for a very long time," Chomsky said. "Inequality now is at a level not seen at least since the 1920s...maybe further back. That is very severe."

Any growth in the last recent years has gone to the top 2% of the population, Chomsky said, adding that a large part of the population is now living below the poverty line while at the very top of the spectrum, profits are booming for the wealthy.

However, today's congressional roadblocks to public service programs, that many say are essential for those in need in the United States, have "nothing to do with bad apples in Congress," Chomsky told HuffPost Live. "These are deep structural problems having to do with, in effect, the neoliberal assault on the population, not just of the United States but of the world, that's taken place in the past generation. There are areas that have escaped, but it's pretty broad."

Chomsky added:
It used to be said years ago that the United States is a one-party state -- the business party -- with two factions, Democrats and Republicans. That's no longer true. It's still a one-party state -- the business party -- but now it has only one faction. And it's not Democrats, it's moderate Republicans. The so-called New Democrats, who are the dominant force in the Democratic Party, are pretty much what used to be moderate Republicans a couple of decades ago. And the rest of the Republican Party has just drifted off the spectrum.


52a8bb631b4ae.preview-500.jpg
 
Noam Chomsky; leftist dimwit extraordinaire. No wonder Kenny is such an economic illiterate; look at who he reads.

Liberals are not only economically clueless, they are also history ignorant.

After re-distributing $20.7 trillion of other peoples wealth for fifty years, lefttards are still clamoring about how mean spirited Republicans are and think that their prolific ideological failure in their misguided war on poverty is a lack of compassion and funds.

Only the most dimwitted among us can think that compassion equals Government forced wealth re-distribution schemes.
 
This is pure comedy...

Spending on food stamps in 2007 pre-crisis... $33B

in 2010 it had jumped to $68B (note: unemployment was very high and it was needed)

in 2013 it was $79B... yet unemployment has come down

Now they want to take it down by $9B, which would still put it about the same as the 2010 crisis level spending.

So which is it Dems? Did the economy improve under Obama? Or not? Did he leave behind mass amounts of people with his policies?
 
The economy isn't very good, unemployment is too high, too many people aren't working or looking for work, long-term unemployment is too high, the jobs being created are bad ones. Therefore, we should end unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and cut food stamps. Makes perfect sense.
 
The economy isn't very good, unemployment is too high, too many people aren't working or looking for work, long-term unemployment is too high, the jobs being created are bad ones. Therefore, we should end unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and cut food stamps. Makes perfect sense.

...but continuing them into perpetuity claiming Obama has done a bang up job reviving the economy spending trillions he doesn't have makes more sense?

What do you think will happen if these benefits expire? That people will start dropping dead in our streets, or they will actually find some kind of work?
 
The economy isn't very good, unemployment is too high, too many people aren't working or looking for work, long-term unemployment is too high, the jobs being created are bad ones. Therefore, we should end unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and cut food stamps. Makes perfect sense.

LMAO...

1) Is the economy better than it was in 2010?
2) Is unemployment lower than it was in 2010?

3) When unemployment was at 99 weeks and it went to 73 weeks, what happened to the economy and unemployment?
 
Unemployment in 2010 was at 9.4% at the year end.
Unemployment in 2013 was at 6.7% at the year end.

Food Stamps cost the US $68B in 2010
Food Stamps cost the US $79B in 2013

Dungs response... things are worse now, so we have to keep spending more.
 
Mid 2012, the 99 week allotment for unemployment max benefits was changed to make it harder for states to qualify for the max. Oddly, the job market began improving shortly thereafter.
 
LMAO...

1) Is the economy better than it was in 2010?
2) Is unemployment lower than it was in 2010?

3) When unemployment was at 99 weeks and it went to 73 weeks, what happened to the economy and unemployment?


(1) Yes.

(2) Yes.

(3) They continued improving at about the same pace.
 
Unemployment in 2010 was at 9.4% at the year end.
Unemployment in 2013 was at 6.7% at the year end.

Food Stamps cost the US $68B in 2010
Food Stamps cost the US $79B in 2013

Dungs response... things are worse now, so we have to keep spending more.


I didn't say things are worse now so . . .
 
(1) Yes.

(2) Yes.

(3) They continued improving at about the same pace.


So a reduction in benefit weeks didn't cause a catastrophe... things kept improving. Yet you whine when we reduce food stamps back to 2010 levels, despite the economy and unemployment being better than they were in 2010 by a large margin.
 
So a reduction in benefit weeks didn't cause a catastrophe... things kept improving. Yet you whine when we reduce food stamps back to 2010 levels, despite the economy and unemployment being better than they were in 2010 by a large margin.


Uh, a reduction in the duration of unemployment benefits didn't cause significant economic harm, but for the people who had their benefits run out it was certainly a problem. Thankfully, there are other social programs available for people in such circumstances, like food stamps. Now, you want to kick people off of unemployment and cut food stamps all while the employment situation, while better, is still pretty shitty. It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, and I'm being charitable.
 
Uh, a reduction in the duration of unemployment benefits didn't cause significant economic harm, but for the people who had their benefits run out it was certainly a problem. Thankfully, there are other social programs available for people in such circumstances, like food stamps. Now, you want to kick people off of unemployment and cut food stamps all while the employment situation, while better, is still pretty shitty. It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, and I'm being charitable.

LMAO... no, you are being a partisan hack. If unemployment is LOWER than 2010, the economy is STRONGER than 2010, then why is it that you need to spend 20% MORE than 2010 on food stamps?

How do you justify that?

While I agree the employment situation is shitty relative to full employment, it is almost 3% lower than it was in 2010. So what actually makes no sense is pretending that cutting back to 2010 levels of food stamp spending (a time when things were worse) is somehow bad.
 
I don't know that real unemployment is lower. 2008 created a permanent underclass in this country. I guess you can't say it created this class, but it greatly expanded it. So many formerly middle class people joined this underclass because of their age. If you were 45 or over, or at most, 50 or over, and lost your job in the crash, you were very unlikely to find another one. Those people are totally fucked.

We should have lowered the SS age, expanded Medicaid, dropped any cap on UI (btw, UI is totally stimulative and anyone against those benefits is not doing it out of fiscal concern but simply for ideological reasons, which basically comes down to spite), and instituted real jobs programs. God knows this country is a shithole and could use a lot of work. Our infrastructure is a mess.
 
I don't know that real unemployment is lower. 2008 created a permanent underclass in this country. I guess you can't say it created this class, but it greatly expanded it. So many formerly middle class people joined this underclass because of their age. If you were 45 or over, or at most, 50 or over, and lost your job in the crash, you were very unlikely to find another one. Those people are totally fucked.

We should have lowered the SS age, expanded Medicaid, dropped any cap on UI (btw, UI is totally stimulative and anyone against those benefits is not doing it out of fiscal concern but simply for ideological reasons, which basically comes down to spite), and instituted real jobs programs. God knows this country is a shithole and could use a lot of work. Our infrastructure is a mess.

Whay happened to all the shovel ready jobs and infrastructure building that was going to happen with the trillion dollar stimulus package of 2009?
 
Back
Top