Public Lecture this Tuesday 18th October at 7pm, the Blandijn in Auditorium C, Ugent
TRUMP v CLINTON - All welcome
It is difficult to put a clear figure on all the money raised and spent to date on the 2016 US Presidential Election because of the complex, opaque and bureaucratic nature of election funding but $1.1 billion would seem a 'conservative' estimate.(That is not taking into account all the 'dark money' that is being illegally spent - don't ask) Considering that around 43 million people in the US rely on food banks, that over half a million citizens are homeless and that around 30 million still do not have any health care cover it is easy to wonder about the wisdom and value of this huge outlay considering it is pouring into the pockets of already wealthy ad and media firms, TV companies, lawyers etc etc Why not use it to feed the hungry, help heal the sick and give shelter as winter approaches? Don't be so simplistic I hear you cry, society just doesn't work like that!
No clearly it does not, but may I ask another simple question, Why are funding records being broken in this Presidential race while the overall federal budget on social welfare is declining? Now I hear you say not only are you being simplistic but ignorant because the funding of welfare programs is public money(tax dollars) and the funding of the presidential race is largely private money. As the federal deficit stands at around $587 billion and the US debt over $19 trillion then clearly there is no money to help support these 'disadvantaged' citizens. Yet I reply, as the top 10% in the US earns over 39 times more than the other 90% couldn't this issue over welfare funding be solved by a relatively small raise in income tax? What! not only are you being simple and ignorant you are now just being plain stupid. The US is a low tax economy in keeping with its understandings of freedom. That means that it is the responsibility of the individual to look after their own welfare and largely not the role of the federal government. But isn't that unfair because if you do belong to these 'disadvantaged' groups how can you improve your overall welfare as well as your families, if you cannot afford to eat, sleep and be healthy? Since, in large part the US is not only low tax its is a low wage economy and that is why the majority of those 'disadvantaged' are actually in paid employment.
Well, the money being spent on the Presidential race is indirectly looking to solve this problem by getting elected a President that can provide for a fairer society. But isn't Trump looking to cut taxes and federal spending while Clinton is suggesting very modest tax raises but also federal spending cuts, so how does that help? OK, in truth what matters is not the Presidential race but the Congressional one since the House and the Senate have most impact on domestic affairs. But don't we already know thanks to the bizarre nature of the US electoral system that after this election the House will continue to be controlled by the Republicans and therefore, the purse strings, and the Senate will most likely go to the Democrats but without the two thirds majority needed to be able for them to do anything meaningful. Therefore, if electing the President doesn't really have any real effect on American society and Congress will stay largely unchanged I go back to my first simple question; why are Americans spending the $1.1 billion on a process that ultimately will provide nothing for large numbers of its citizens? I know, you have already told me, I'm just being stupid!
Matthew Arnold, English essayist (1822-1888) once observed, Our inequality materializes our upper class, vulgarizes our middle class, brutalizes our lower class.” All very true but of course today it also drives a narrative in the US that demands the 'rightness of the status quo' over the 'simple and ridiculous notion' that the nation's priorities are just plain wrong and need urgent attention. Why? because regardless of which candidate finally limps to the White House this one sided conversation will continue to be delivered by a powerful elite who enjoy the materialisation of inequality, they benefit from this growing space between them and us and in-spite of all their rhetoric, will not change it. Since they have been branded 'wealthy and wise' and therefore,we are considered poor and stupid.
Trump professes to be on the side of the 'victims' of an unfair society as long as your white, male and a 'genuine' American. Clinton professes to be on her side; the middle classes that also been disadvantaged by inequality. Both are part of the powerful elite that have benefited from this unfair economic system. Are we really stupid enough to believe either of them will effect the change necessary to make the welfare of the poor and disenfranchised a priority since most cannot even vote let alone live in the world where both candidates reside?
KK
Public Lecture this Tuesday 18th October at 7pm, the Blandijn in Auditorium C, Ugent
TRUMP v CLINTON - All welcome
TRUMP v CLINTON - All welcome
It is difficult to put a clear figure on all the money raised and spent to date on the 2016 US Presidential Election because of the complex, opaque and bureaucratic nature of election funding but $1.1 billion would seem a 'conservative' estimate.(That is not taking into account all the 'dark money' that is being illegally spent - don't ask) Considering that around 43 million people in the US rely on food banks, that over half a million citizens are homeless and that around 30 million still do not have any health care cover it is easy to wonder about the wisdom and value of this huge outlay considering it is pouring into the pockets of already wealthy ad and media firms, TV companies, lawyers etc etc Why not use it to feed the hungry, help heal the sick and give shelter as winter approaches? Don't be so simplistic I hear you cry, society just doesn't work like that!
No clearly it does not, but may I ask another simple question, Why are funding records being broken in this Presidential race while the overall federal budget on social welfare is declining? Now I hear you say not only are you being simplistic but ignorant because the funding of welfare programs is public money(tax dollars) and the funding of the presidential race is largely private money. As the federal deficit stands at around $587 billion and the US debt over $19 trillion then clearly there is no money to help support these 'disadvantaged' citizens. Yet I reply, as the top 10% in the US earns over 39 times more than the other 90% couldn't this issue over welfare funding be solved by a relatively small raise in income tax? What! not only are you being simple and ignorant you are now just being plain stupid. The US is a low tax economy in keeping with its understandings of freedom. That means that it is the responsibility of the individual to look after their own welfare and largely not the role of the federal government. But isn't that unfair because if you do belong to these 'disadvantaged' groups how can you improve your overall welfare as well as your families, if you cannot afford to eat, sleep and be healthy? Since, in large part the US is not only low tax its is a low wage economy and that is why the majority of those 'disadvantaged' are actually in paid employment.
Well, the money being spent on the Presidential race is indirectly looking to solve this problem by getting elected a President that can provide for a fairer society. But isn't Trump looking to cut taxes and federal spending while Clinton is suggesting very modest tax raises but also federal spending cuts, so how does that help? OK, in truth what matters is not the Presidential race but the Congressional one since the House and the Senate have most impact on domestic affairs. But don't we already know thanks to the bizarre nature of the US electoral system that after this election the House will continue to be controlled by the Republicans and therefore, the purse strings, and the Senate will most likely go to the Democrats but without the two thirds majority needed to be able for them to do anything meaningful. Therefore, if electing the President doesn't really have any real effect on American society and Congress will stay largely unchanged I go back to my first simple question; why are Americans spending the $1.1 billion on a process that ultimately will provide nothing for large numbers of its citizens? I know, you have already told me, I'm just being stupid!
Matthew Arnold, English essayist (1822-1888) once observed, Our inequality materializes our upper class, vulgarizes our middle class, brutalizes our lower class.” All very true but of course today it also drives a narrative in the US that demands the 'rightness of the status quo' over the 'simple and ridiculous notion' that the nation's priorities are just plain wrong and need urgent attention. Why? because regardless of which candidate finally limps to the White House this one sided conversation will continue to be delivered by a powerful elite who enjoy the materialisation of inequality, they benefit from this growing space between them and us and in-spite of all their rhetoric, will not change it. Since they have been branded 'wealthy and wise' and therefore,we are considered poor and stupid.
Trump professes to be on the side of the 'victims' of an unfair society as long as your white, male and a 'genuine' American. Clinton professes to be on her side; the middle classes that also been disadvantaged by inequality. Both are part of the powerful elite that have benefited from this unfair economic system. Are we really stupid enough to believe either of them will effect the change necessary to make the welfare of the poor and disenfranchised a priority since most cannot even vote let alone live in the world where both candidates reside?
KK
Public Lecture this Tuesday 18th October at 7pm, the Blandijn in Auditorium C, Ugent
TRUMP v CLINTON - All welcome
RSS Feed
