Doesn't this remind you of all the BS screaming about the looters (many of them just people in distress without food or housing) in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, and how all that cheap (no paying-minimum-wage worries) foreign labor (brought in by packed trucks) and no local contracting was necessary to the rebuilding?
Ah, the good ole days.
For the savage Disaster Capitalists!
By Naomi Klein, Guardian UK
07 November 12
The aftermath of the storm offers a chance to rebuild a fairer society. How can we seize it?
ess than three days after Sandy made landfall on the east coast of the United States, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute blamed New Yorkers' resistance to Big Box stores for the misery they were about to endure. Writing on Forbes.com, he explained that the city's refusal to embrace Walmart will likely make the recovery much harder: "Mom-and-pop stores simply can't do what big stores can in these circumstances," he wrote. He also warned that if the pace of reconstruction turned out to be sluggish (as it so often is) then "pro-union rules such as the Davis-Bacon Act" would be to blame, a reference to the statute that requires workers on public works projects to be paid not the minimum wage, but the prevailing wage in the region.
Gail Collins offers a lesson in tongue-in-cheek cliff avoidance.
Notice that the cliff is only evident to those wanting to take it out of the hide of the poor(er) citizens.
Just gotta reform those life-saving programs! (And if any of you lovely, intelligent readers could make a contribution to this blog's ongoing financial health, please do! Thanks again to everyone in my audience, especially the ones who have been past contributors and have kept me afloat until now.)
Boehner also raised a whole new specter of political peril: “going over part of the fiscal cliff.” That sounded less dire, as long as we all stay inside our dangling cars and refrain from making any moves until help arrives.
But, by the end, it sounded as if the only cliff-avoidance Boehner was really interested in was one that raised new revenue through “fewer loopholes, and lower rates for all.”
We have already seen that plan. It was proposed by a man who, on Tuesday, lost the state in which he was born, the state in which he was governor, and the three states in which he owns houses. Thanks to a blog by Eric Ostermeier in Smart Politics, I am able to point out that the only candidate for president who lost his home state by a larger margin than Mitt Romney was John Frémont in 1856. And Frémont was coming out of a campaign in which the opposition accused him of being a cannibal.
While Boehner was explaining the importance of not going halfway over a cliff, or raising income taxes on the rich, he looked somber, and somewhat unhappy. This may have been because his Republican colleagues just lost the White House and the Senate. Or perhaps, it was simply because he’s an older white guy, and, therefore, part of the biggest loser demographic of the election, the flip-side of the insurgent Latino vote.