Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Candidate Trump and the Last Hurrah of the White Republican Voter

by Nomad

The GOP has long ignored the warnings and continued to court a shrinking audience of angry white voters. Indeed, his rise to the top of the Republican party may just spell the end of hopes for ever winning presidential elections.


Writing for the website Salon, Heather "Digby" Parton has analyzed the present confused political situation in an op-ed piece and came to interesting conclusions about what's really going on. 
Pointing out that Obama won reelection by getting the smallest share of white voters of any presidential candidate in history, Parton suggests that this is a sign of the marginalization of the white vote. And that's something that's  very likely to continue whether Republican candidates recognize it or not. 

Ideological Reinforcement of Like-Minded People
The Republican establishment may think that simply by im­prov­ing turnout they can take back the White House. With Trump at the helm, there is not much chance for much-needed reform of the GOP agenda. In short, Trump is taking the party to a place where it will not survive. 
Not a party for the entire country but a party with a country club mentality with an ever-shrinking membership.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

With GOP in Complete Disarray, Trump Offers Establishment Some Difficult Choices

by Nomad

King of the World Donald TrumpThe results from the last Republican debate are in and it must have a lot of people in the Republican party extremely jittery. And they really ought to be.


After the sixth debate, Trump is still holding his commanding position, the reins of Republican Party power seem to be in his hands and he isn't going anywhere.  
MarketWatch reports:
The political establishment — in places like New York, Washington and Los Angeles — has been waiting for months for the Trump movement to flame out of its own accord. In the past few weeks they have finally woken up to the shock that this may not happen.
The choices for the ruling elite (whose authority Trump seems to be directly challenging) are stark. Either take Donald Trump with all his political warts, all of his toxic rhetoric and his inane policies or take a 50-50% risk that he will walk away and escort his supporters over to his third party. 

Even the Best Case Isn't So Terrific
According to one source, all this uncertainty and instability is having a negative effect on Wall Street. While blaming the decline in stocks on the political confusion might seem like a stretch, there is a bit of logic to that claim.

Above all else, Wall Street likes certainty and predictability. It's their security blanket and, at this point, things, especially in the Republican Party, could hardly be anymore uncertain. Here are two possible outcomes and both are fairly awful for investors. 
Even in Wall Street’s best-case scenario, the parties will only pick establishment candidates after months of bruising primary battles. In a worst-case scenario (for investors, at any rate): They’ll pick one or two heterodox outsiders who will threaten to turn everything upside down.
So, you have the Republican party being led by a rabble-rousing billionaire that cannot be bought and on the other side, there's a competition among the Dems about which candidate can appear more aggressive on Wall Street accountability.

For the Republican Party, the options are fraught with existential danger, namely, an acrimonious split in the GOP that will not be easily mended.
Analysts are looking at the possibility of having an unelectable candidate or an unwinnable campaign. 

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Race to the Bottom: Trump's Minimum Wage Cuts and the Competitive Hoax

by Nomad

Ever imagine a day would come in America when a candidate for president would tell voters that the lowest wage was too good for them. The moment came in the last Republican debate.


At the last Republican debates, we heard GOP candidate Donald Trump trying to explain why he was against an increase in the minimum wage. Trump told the audience that that wages are “too high” in the United States. 
A lot of audacious things come out of the mouth of The Donald, but, coming from a one of the wealthiest candidates in US history, this remark had to be the hardest to hear for people making the lowest wage in the country.

Trump's Tactical Blunder

In response to a question about the New York decision to raise the minimum wage for certain workers to $15 an hour, he said
“Taxes too high, wages too high. We’re not going to be able to compete against the world.”
Cutting wages may have been something Republicans often implied but never dared to say outright. For good reason. For a lot working men and women, a remark like that puts you smack dab in the category of the oligarchical class.
The following day, Trump remained adamant in his declaration and insisted he had nothing to retract.

Almost immediately Trump's foes- a group not limited to the left- jumped on the remark, calling it a colossal blunder. Not in terms of  economic policy. If it were left to conservatives, wages would decrease, and there are probably plenty of CEOs out there who dream of wages dropped to zero. 

After all, nobody seemed to mind the fact that for most workers, wages have remained stagnant for the last two decades. Everything else, like food and housing costs, retail prices and medical costs, all these have soared.

So, few commentators on the Right considered Trump actually be wrong but only that his remark was a tactical misstep. You can think it, you can hint at it, and you can camouflage it with trickle-down redux but if you want to get elected, you sure as hell shouldn't say it. 

It showed, his critics said, a lack of understanding of where his core support originates. The angry working class.

Monday, November 16, 2015

Between Victims and Heroes: Searching for Those Things that Unite Us

by Nomad

In the aftermath of two terrorist attacks, one in Beirut and another in Paris a day later, we must take a moment for reflection, not about our differences, but about the things that unite us. 


For the last few days, the world's attention has been fixated on the coordinated attacks in Paris on Friday which left 129 dead and 352 injured. What should have been the pleasant start of a weekend, a warm autumn evening turned out to be a stage for nothing short of a blood bath and a city under siege.

A Vain Search for Answers
In every respect, it was a senseless act and yet the human mind tries in vain to make sense of it. How could it happen and why?
What kind of evil could transform a convivial scene at an outdoor cafe, with crowds of people enjoying the company of friends into a war zone massacre with bodies strewn on the streets and sidewalks?

How could this happen? To what purpose? Who actually benefited by the murder of 23-year-old Hugo Sarrade, who was enjoying a night out at a Bataclan concert? 
How did the vicious slaughter of Mathieu Hoche, Quentin Boulanger, 29, or Marie Lausch, 23, and her boyfriend, Mathias Dymarski, 22, truly further any political cause? 

These were not martyred for a great cause. These were not crusaders for their religion. And they certainly were not soldiers defending their nation. 
They were, in fact, not representatives of anything more than themselves. They were targeted simply because, like the victims on the beach attack in Tunisia in June, they were easy to kill en masse.

Saturday, October 31, 2015

Hacker Group Anonymous to Release Names of 1000 KKK Members Next Month

by Nomad


The hacker group Anonymous recently issued an announcement that it would reveal the identities of some 1000 members of the white supremacist organization, the KKK next month. The announcement read:
“After closely observing so many of you for so very long, we feel confident that applying transparency to your organizational cells is the right, just, appropriate and only course of action.”

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Science, Evolution and The Magical Thinking of Dr. Ben Carson

by Nomad


Ben Carson's remarks on evolution may seem extraordinary for such an educated person. In fact, there's a very good explanation for his backward way of thinking.


A Relatively Modern Science Concept

This week, scientists at National Academy of Sciences in Washington have released a new version of the tree of life
The graphic shows everything science knows about the relationship of all living things on the planet. With the inclusion of 2.3 million species the graphic is the most complete of its kind.

As complete as it is, it is far from finished. With an estimated 8.7 million of species today, (that doesn't include the species that have gone extinct) there are still quite a lot of blank spaces to fill in the record.

One of the aspects of Darwin's theory of evolution was that all life -including humankind- is related and originated from the same primitive organisms. That every living thing, from microbes to fungus to giraffes, on the planet ultimately share a common ancestor
In some ways, it's a really ethereal idea which helps us find our place in the larger scheme of things. Our uniqueness as a life form comes in our knowing that place.
The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time.
Researcher Douglas Soltis of the University of Florida said:
"As important as showing what we do know about relationships, this first tree of life is also important in revealing what we don't know."
It's hard to find a better statement that better represents what science is really all about. Amid and in contrast to all of this marvelous science showing us the miraculous story of how life began, there was in the same week a video of Dr. Carson and his view of evolution. 

Carson on Newton

Before nodding spectators, Dr. Ben Carson, a pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital and Republican Presidential hopeful, expounded on his views about creationism vs. evolution at the conference called Celebration of Creation.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

The Radical Republican: When the GOP Championed the 14th Amendment

by Nomad


One idea that many people have a hard time wrapping their heads around is how the platforms of the two major political parties in America have dramatically shifted over the last 150 years. 

This historical fact is brought into sharper focus with the recent talk by Republican Donald Trump about the possibility of repealing the 14th Amendment and citizen birth rights provisions.

Friday, December 5, 2014

Teddy Roosevelt and the Death Knell of the Republic

by Nomad


Roosevelt Teddy Quotation Justice

It often surprises me how clear-sighted so many of our leaders of the past seemed compared to the muddled-headed ideas of the present day. The fight against oligarchy and corporate-rigging of our political system did not begin with this generation. We have walked this way about a century ago. However, because of the general ignorance of our own history, we have been deprived of the wisdom and support of our elders. 

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Shocking: Utah Republicans Discover the Existence of Poverty and Social Inequality

by Nomad

Republican discover poor
According to a Salt Lake City article, Utah Republicans have made an astounding discovery. The poor! Furthermore, the conservatives say, with a few relatively cheap government programs, the cycle of poverty could be stopped in its tracks.

Unfortunately this is the same message that liberal Democrats have been saying for more than 50 years.


An op-ed piece in the Salt Lake City Tribune entitled "Utah Republicans Starting to Take on Poverty" should have a lot of voters scratching their heads in disbelief.

A Conservative  Epiphany on Poverty?
The article regales Utah Republicans for suddenly discovering the poor. Those sharp eyed conservatives never miss a trick, do they? 
The Republican legislators are, according to the article, 
"starting to realize that the poor have always been with us. And that that’s not a good thing. And that the rich and powerful should be doing something about it."
No kidding? Well, I declare.

This remarkable discovery was announced by Republican state Sen. Stuart Reid, who has been representing District 18 since January 1, 2011 .Reid has also detected something called intergenerational poverty.
Poverty, the Republicans have learned, can be passed down like an unfortunate inheritance. Who could have imagined it?

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Prohibited Person: What Happens If Texas Governor Rick Perry Becomes a Convicted Felon

by Nomad

Here's a quick peek into what Governor Perry's life might be like if he is convicted on felony charges.


It's a post title I never thought I'd write, that's for sure.

By now most people have heard the news that Texas governor Rick Perry has been indicted for abuse of power after carrying out a threat to veto funding for state public corruption prosecutors. Of course the most serious result of any conviction would be hard time in prison. A conviction on those charges carries with it a maximum punishment on the first charge is five to 99 years in prison. The second is two to 10 years.

While the charge and the possible punishments are not something about would dismiss lightly, nobody should be foolish enough to think that a conviction is a sure thing, of course.
This is, after all, Texas.

The possibility that Perry will ever walk down "Broadway" in an orange one-piece and state-issued bo-bos is fairly remote. However, supposing the judicial system can withstand the enormous political pressure that will doubtless be exerted, and Perry is actually convicted of these felonies, he might find life a little less lovely.
Even without any time in the Big House.
There are other legal limits imposed on a convicted felon For example he will no longer be allowed to serve on a federal grand or petit jury jury, according to Texas and federal laws.
Big Whoop, right? But that's the least important restriction. Let's take a look some others.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Pitchforks and Fundraising Pitches: How the Threat of Impeachment has Backfired on the GOP

by Nomad


After so much loose talk about impeaching President Obama, the GOP appears to be scoring own goals for Democratic campaign fundraising efforts.


In yet another example of a Republican self-inflicted wound, the Washington Post yesterday reported that, due to the threat of impeachment from top conservatives, the Democrats are cashing in big time.

Only Themselves to Blame
The Post article explained that the the Democrats' congressional campaign arm managed to rake in $2.1 million over the weekend, thanks, analysts say, largely because of the casual (and largely groundless) talk from House Republicans of impeaching President Obama.
Democrats have consistently used impeachment -- a prospect that has been floated by several prominent conservatives but has not been embraced by most of the Republican establishment -- to fill their campaign coffers and their polling has shown that fear of an impeachment attempt as well as the House GOP's current attempts to sue President Obama have the potential to drive midterm turnout on the left.
As the House Rules committee marched forward with a legal action against the president and his use of executive action, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has collected more than 114,000 donations since last Thursday.

If, fundraisers warn, the Democratic party loses control of both chambers of Congress, the next step will be impeachment.
Fear-mongering or a likely scenario? 
That depends on which side of the aisle you sit. Using the dread of a long and tiresome (and expensive) impeachment process- which could drag out for the remainder of Obama's presidency- appears to be a effective fundraising pitch for the Democrats.  
And the most humiliating part is that the successful pitch was laid in their laps by the Republican Tea Party rogues. 


Saturday, June 28, 2014

Evidence that the GOP Hasn't Changed in Nearly 80 years

by Nomad


This cartoon comes from a New York City newspaper. The cartoonist is showing how "out of tune" and tone deaf the Republican party was.
The date?

April 26, 1936.










Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Comrade Abraham: Was President Lincoln a Closet Marxist?

by Nomad

Abe Lincoln Labor

When we think of Lincoln, most of us do not consider the sixteenth president as a Marxist revolutionary. Yet, a little research uncovers some very interesting- slightly confounding- connections between Abe Lincoln and the father of the Communist movement. As fascinating as that might be, there is an even bigger shock in store when it comes to the origins of the Republican Party.


This quote in the meme above reportedly came early in his political career (December 1847). For some of us who grew up thinking of "Honest Abe" as a folksy backwoods lawyer, it's a bit jarring to hear him talking about labor issues. It's not the image many of us have of the man who freed the slaves and held the nation together. (It's hard enough to think of him as a Republican.)

But there was more to that quote. Lincoln also wrote in that same passage:
These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people.
It's impossible to imagine that any president would dare to say such a thing today. And especially not a Republican one. Any conservative politician who expressed such thoughts today could expect to be skewered alive and roasted slowly (with relish) live on Fox News.

The Battle of the Quotations
As we are all well aware, politicians tend to talk more than necessary and in doing so, say a lot of nonsense, especially early on in their careers. However, in Lincoln's case there is more to it than that. We do know that from early in his career, Lincoln's ideas had not changed but actually expanded. 

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Blaming the Victim: Republicans and America's Rape Culture

by Nomad

Recent remarks by a Wall Street Journal commentator reveal that there are still people who are confused about the subject of rape. A high level of intoxication of both the victim and the rapist, he claimed, makes them both responsible for the crime. 



The Sheikh and the Outrage


Let us start in another country and another culture, not to pass judgement but to reveal a widespread mentality in its most obvious expression.

For hundreds of years, the West has always held a peeve with the way strict Islam deals with its female followers. This is particularly true when it comes to the burka or the scarf-like hijab.
When a prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly made a remark about immodestly dressed women were inviting trouble. During a Ramadan sermon in a Sydney mosque, Sheik al-Hilali implied that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame. 
There were women, he said, who 'sway suggestively' and wore make-up and immodest dress "and then you get a judge without mercy and gives you 65 years. But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims.
"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."Women, he told his followers,  who do not cover themselves are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators.
So, by the Sheikh's reckoning, it is the men who are prey to those predatory temptresses with their pretty naughty traps. Women, the Sheikh also stated,  were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat."
As soon as these words hit the tabloids, there was the predictable outrage throughout Australia and eventually the globe. It was tainted with that kind of attitude we often hear when discussing other cultures.
It runs something like: "It's an outrage! At least, we are better than that!"

In any case, it also sold lots of newspapers. And while the Sheikh eventually apologized but it's hard to believe he thought what he said was absolutely wrong. And why should he apologize, it is after all a standard teaching of the religion.
(It is normally not stated in such graphic terms.)
In the Islamic publication, "Could Not Answer" it says:
The harm given to youngsters, to people and to the State by women who go about naked, and with strong smells of perfume, and wanton ornaments is worse and more threatening than that of alcohol and narcotics. Allah has commanded that women and girls to cover themselves lest His born servants fall into disasters in this world and vehement torments in the hereafter.
Many Islamic scholars have an elaborate (some would say labored) rationale. Women, they would say, are precious that they must be protected. Putting their bodies on display for all the world to see is a form of disrespect for women. 
For example, another cleric in Copenhagen created his own storm by carrying the teaching to the next level when he told his followers:
Women are not entitled to respect when they walk around without a Hijab. They are to blame for it when they are attacked”
He also said:
“All the crimes that occur against women is because they are not covered. When they are not covered, you have no respect for them.”
It is the West that disrespects women by allowing them to prance around, swaying and all, revealing their bare midriffs, or wrist, or chins. 

It is probably not all that shocking to learn that this particular cleric was reportedly later arrested for sexual assault, accused of pulling his penis out and chasing a 23-year-old woman around in a park in Sweden. I wonder how this woman brought this attack upon herself. (That's sarcasm, by the way. )

In any case, according to this line of thinking, women who do not cover themselves reduce themselves to irresistible temptations for hapless men who are unable to control themselves.
As I said, that's another culture and does not represent mainstream Muslim culture. But what about American culture? Are there really some people who still hold women responsible when they become victims of rape?

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

The Gender Gap: Why Women Voters will Reject the GOP in the Midterm Elections

by Nomad

In red states like Kentucky, women voters may just turn these states to blue in the upcoming election.  If that state is any to go by, Republicans are going to be in big trouble. And when it comes with women voters, the party has nobody to blame but itself.

According to an article in the LA Progressive, a recent non-partisan poll shows that Democratic candidate Alison Grimes has a four-point advantage over Mitch McConnell, the senate minority leader and long time incumbent. While four points may not make Grimes a sure thing, the poll also reveals something that must be even more disturbing for Republican strategists. Grimes has a 12 point lead among women surveyed. That's right, a full twelve points.
And women- as a voting block- make up a full 53 percent of all registered voters in Kentucky. 
The bottom line is: Losing women voters means losing an election.
That doesnt guarantee Grimes an easy victory, of course. Naturally, she has done her best to highlight McConnell's poor record on issues women care about.
Said a Grimes spokesperson Charly Norton,
“McConnell’s votes against the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and the Violence Against Women Act appear to be a serious drag on his ability to win over Kentucky women. Unless McConnell explains why he has voted against women’s interests time and time again, he will fail to gain an ounce more of support.”
States like Missouri and Indiana have also shown that Republican candidates have lost women voters by a wide margin. 
It's hard not to see that when it comes to women voters, the Republican Party is still in disarray. They may know what the problem is but is it possible that the Republican Party cannot change? Is its attitudes toward women, toward gays and lesbians, toward the poor actually the cold heart of the GOP?  

Friday, January 17, 2014

Sequester Cuts and Killing Unemployment Benefit Extensions: When GOP Values Make no Sense

by Nomad


This week the Republicans appeared to be sticking to its tried and true conservative principles by blocking a vote on extending unemployment benefits. 
Add to that the impact of sequester cuts to state jobs training programs and you have a campaign issue nightmare. The question is: can any party get elected by hurting its most vulnerable voters? 
Not once but twice?

Two days ago, Republican conservatives used the power of the filibuster to block a Democratic bill to restore unemployment benefits to over a million Americans, hit hard by the recession. According to an announcement of this decision, the lawmakers declared they were standing on conservative principle.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) stated:
"People, if you pay 'em for years and years, they won't look for a job." 
Who is the "'em" and who are the "they"? What happened to "us" and "we"? 
Extending unemployment benefits, he added, creates no jobs. At a cost of $6.4 billion, the cost of the extension could not be justified, according to the Republicans. Shelby told an interviewer,
"That is a huge expenditure. What we need to do is spend that money on retraining these people that are unemployed -- help them for a few months and get them retrained and get them back in the job market. That's the problem."
As we shall see, there is a major problem with that idea. 
Other Republicans cited their conservative principles to support the filibuster. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said:
"I certainly ran because we're mortgaging our children's future. We're bankrupting this nation."
It's not hard to imagine the possible fallout from this decision come election time. With more than.1.3 million people Americans left without any kind of safety net nationwide, it could make a difference who controls the houses of Congress.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Waiting for America's Bhopal: How Budget Cuts and De-Regulation Are Making the Unimaginable Inevitable

by Nomad

Last year's West, Texas explosion and this week's West Virginia chemical leak could just be a wake up call to the nation. De-regulation and budget cutting may make us more competitive but at what cost?

A single environmental disaster could affect the lives of millions of people, cost the state billions and make entire areas uninhabitable. And that  could make the discussion of de-regulation and budget-cuts completely null and void.

Not long ago I read the book Five Past Midnight in Bhopal: The Epic Story of the World's Deadliest Industrial Disaster. It's the kind of book that you know you should read but dread to begin. It's an exceedingly thoroughly-researched book and at times, slow going. In spite of that,  in these days when environmental regulations are under attack by the conservative Republicans, it should be on every American's reading list.

Most people, I suppose, have heard of the industrial disaster at Bhopal but here's a little refresher.

The Bhopal Event
In the early hours of December 3, 1984, in the town of Bhopal, India, a nearby Union Carbide plant, which manufactured insecticides, accidentally released a heavy toxic cloud of chemicals into the surrounding residential area. The heavy cloud hovered over the area, which was comprised mostly of crowded slums. It literally fumigated the unsuspecting village, mercilessly killing the people that lived there.

Within hours, things quickly collapsed. Panic and confusion spread and any kind of coordinated response was impossible. The local government was totally ill-equipped to handle the emergency. (The very idea that it could happen at all seems never to have crossed their minds.)

Saturday, January 11, 2014

The Shocking Truth about Freedom Fries, the French Boycott and Fox News

by Nomad


An exclusive look back at the Conservative revenge against the French for not joining its coalition of the willing: the crusade of Freedom Fries and a boycott of French products, promoted by Fox News.


The French Warning

On February 14, 2003, Dominique de Villepin, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, addressed the UN to state his nation's opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention today be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?
UN Dominique de VillepinHis tone was that of an old friend giving advice to a headstrong impulsive youth:
This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. An old country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind.
The response from the member nations was unprecedented. His speech received an ovation from the normally circumspect crowd.
Villepin's remarks came on the heels of speeches by chief UN weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei who had both cautioned against taking a fatal misstep. Instead, they called for a "steady as she goes" policy with regards to the inspections.

The Bush administration was, to put it mildly, less than pleased. It was a critical time in the coalition forming and the prospects of forming any kind of international consensus were growing dim. This was not your daddy's coalition, critics might have told George Bush. 

Government officials were already well aware of the European opposition to any military action against Saddam Hussein. Opinion polls showed the population was against the war, with the opposition as high as 90% in Spain and Italy, and also widespread in Eastern Europe. Key allies like France and Germany both advocated a continuation of the inspections.

The Bush officials and the conservatives in Washington saw all this as nothing short of a European betrayal, led by the weak-willed French.

Thursday, January 2, 2014

The Truth about Reducing Unemployment: Washington's Silver Line Metro Extension

by Nomad



Exclusive: In theory, there are practical ways to reduce unemployment. In this post we look at the long-awaited Silver Line Metro extension in Washington D.C shows to see if there can be any lessons to learn about the ways the solutions can get de-railed. 

_____________
Back in 1922, a British Labour politician by the delightful name of Frederick William Pethick-Lawrence wrote a small book named Unemployment, in which he laid out the causes for unemployment and possible solutions. He writes:
What is to be done about the unemployable, the lazy and inefficient workers? Punishment is the device to which large numbers of people fly when they are confronted with a human problem for which they can see no other easy solution ; and punishment sometimes active in the form of imprisonment or chastisement, and some times passive in the form of destitution, has been inflicted on bad workers all down history with the avowed object of making them into useful citizens. It has failed, as punishment usually fails, except as an expression of the vengeance of an outraged society.
Punishment and blaming the victim was not a remedy.  Though millions of Americans will see their unemployment benefits run out this month, few people in their right minds think it would do anything to reduce unemployment. It is merely a irrational way to punish people asking for the minimal assistance from the government.

Among the many points he makes, Lawrence concludes there are no easy answers to the problem of unemployment. Preventive measures require a degree of forward thinking not found in most governments. By the time an unemployment problem becomes prevalent, it is, he says, usually too late. As long as nations have booms and busts, there will be cycles of unemployment.

However he does suggest that when unemployment is widespread, it should be seen as an opportunity to overhaul the infrastructure of the country. The costs, Lawrence suggests, would "probably be borne partly by loans to be repaid out of receipts and partly by increased taxation spread over a period of years." 

In other words- gasp!- deficient spending and taxation. And so what, Lawrence says. This kind of relief work shouldn't be considered be wasteful since it would, if well-considered, become part of a larger investment in the nation itself. In both the long term and short term, there would be winners.

So let's take a look at what happened in the US when this solution was attempted. When we look at the one of the largest infrastructure projects - the Dulles Metro Extension- in the nation - the Dulles Metro Extension- we can make some interesting observations.