Podcast Show #96: Austerity is the Consensus of Both Parties

The Boiling Frogs Show Presents Eric Draitser

BFP Podcast Logo

Eric Draitser joins us to define and discuss austerity, what austerity looks like in the US, the fact that austerity is the consensus of both parties, why an anti-austerity movement is essential in the US, and helps us connect what’s happening here to Greece, Italy, and Spain. Mr. Draitser talks about the deception of Obama on austerity-selling out his base and all progressives, Romney & Ryan as the bringers of death for many, possible solutions-including his recent activities organizing an anti-austerity movement in New York City, and more!


Listen to the Preview Clip Here


Play


Here is our guest Eric Draitser unplugged!

[private]

Play

[/private]

draitserEric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. He is a partner producer at Boiling Frogs Post, and the editor and host of StopImperialism.com and the Stop Imperialism podcast. He has provided analysis for Russia Today, Dr. Webster Tarpley’s World Crisis Radio and other programs.


This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVD .

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

Comments

  1. It’s great to have you back, Sibel! Thanks for a very good first (96th) podcast.

    The Reality Principle (not principal, right? ;) is going to be great. Nice to have Mr. Draitser producing a new show here. I appreciate his analysis and point of view.

  2. I should also mention that Peter, Sibel, and Eric did a good job of extending the austerity discussion to another discussion that I have been wanting to happen here at BFP. That is about whether or not the irate minority can reconcile the no-government vs reform-government directions among us.

    I thought that the three of them took a nice step forward in the effort to put coalition-building action at center stage. Eric’s ideas were very heartening. We shouldn’t get bogged down trying to decide if it’s called a revolution or purely an escape from bondage, but instead join forces and build bridges.

    And BFP is a perfect place to do it, precisely because of the nice mix of partners, producers, and community viewpoints. Makes a person almost want to feel positive.

  3. I share Sibel’s libertarian skepticism (expressed midway through) about government’s ability to provide for the social safety net. Note that the preamble of the Constitution does not say “provide” but to “promote the general welfare.” Promotion of such can be done by other means than through centralized government bureaucracies. For instance, though many libertarians want to do away with the income tax, suppose instead that we keep it, allowing a dollar for dollar deduction of contributions made to independent and decentralized organizations in order to provide for the general welfare. This would not only “starve the beast” that is the federal government from its parasitical sustenance off of our income, but it would also have the effect of wresting control of “non-profit” corporations and foundations from the very wealthy (Rockefellers, Gates, Soros, Koch bros, etc.) who have their own dubious agendas.

  4. Hi ROro,

    I like the intention with the personal choice in where our taxes go. I’d love to be able to boycott war funding, for instance.

    I’d like to point out a couple things about the suggestion:

    1. The type of organization that could qualify for receiving tax money would be controlled by the government. If not, it’d be basically like just keeping the money, since people could setup their own organizations to keep the money.

    2. There are things that benefit the whole society, even though it might not be apparent to an individual, when they make choices about where their money would go. How do good roads affect someone who doesn’t drive? How does an educated community affect someone with no kids?

    3. The ability to budget and plan for long term projects and developments requires some consistency of funding. So, while this idea might be good for a portion of our contributions, I’d guess that we’d need to allow centralized budgets for things like a social safety net.

  5. Xicha, a quick answer to your points…

    1. following the existing standards for 501(c)3 orgs, these would be formed to satisfy some public, not private, function; whether charity, education, arts and sciences, and (perhaps most importantly) intelligence.

    2. The latter would answer part one of this point. What I’m calling “intelligence” would include orgs. like BFP as news gatherers and analysis, along with others whose charge is to provide reliable information on their respective subject matters so that the citizen is knowledgeable on what social needs are not being met, and whether these need to be addressed legislatively or through financial support. I would add that while, as you point out, not everyone will value the same things similarly, as a whole the needs will be met in the aggregate of individual concern. This is achieved through a free market of the public, as opposed to private, sector.

    3. If by this you mean social security and medicare – these I am not necessarily including in this proposed system of funding, which is done through the income tax (SS and medicare are done separately in the existing system). These are essentially federally run insurance plans, and as such these really aren’t taxes since theoretically you will get back what you paid in…

  6. Thanks, ROro.

Speak Your Mind