Adonis Diaries

Archive for May 21st, 2012

Money can’t buy me love, but a job would be nice?

Can’t buy me love…

Greg Kaufmann posted on May 18, 2012: “This Week in Poverty: A Little Help for the Long-Term Unemployed?

“There are 12.5 million unemployed people still seeking work in the United States, and over 5 million of them have been looking for work for longer than 27 weeks.

These are “the long-term unemployed,” and their prospects for finding employment or getting assistance are rapidly diminishing.

The long-term unemployed now make up over 40 percent of all unemployed workers, and 3.3 percent of the labor force. In the past six decades, the previous highs for these figures were 26 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively, in June 1983.

Instead of helping these folks weather the storm and find ways to re-enter the workforce, our nation is moving in the opposite direction. In fact, this past Sunday, 230,000 people who have been looking for work for over a year lost their unemployment benefits. More than 400,000 people have now lost unemployment insurance (UI) since the beginning of the year as twenty-five high-unemployment states have ended their Extended Benefits (EB) program.

What makes the denial of this lifeline all the more absurd is the reason for it. As Hannah Shaw, research associate at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), writes, “Benefits have ended not because economic conditions have improved, but because they have not significantly deteriorated in the past three years.”

It’s all about an obscure rule called “the three-year look-back.”

Under federal guidelines, for a state to offer additional weeks of benefits it must have an unemployment rate of at least 6.5 percent, and—according to the look back rule—the rate must be “at least 10 percent higher than it was any of the three prior years.”

“Unemployment rates have remained so elevated for so long that most states no longer meet this latter criterion,” writes Shaw. She points to California as a prime example. For more than three years, its unemployment rate has remained above 10 percent, but it fails the three-year look back test because the rate didn’t rise sufficiently. As a result, over 90,000 Californians lost their benefits on Sunday.

Prior to Congress reducing the maximum number of weeks of unemployment benefits earlier this year, there was some discussion of changing the look back rule to four years, or even suspending it. But in the end there wasn’t the political will to do it and there certainly isn’t now.

Shaw said: “Many of these people have been looking for work for well over a year and now their UI benefits have ended sooner than expected,” she says. “Many families rely on these benefits to make ends meet, and many are left with little else.”

Indeed in 2010, unemployment benefits kept 3.2 million people above the poverty line—which is roughly $17, 300 for a family of three. A report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) gives some indication of what might lie ahead for people who exhaust their benefits.

Of the 15.4 million workers who lost jobs from 2007 to 2009, half of the workers received unemployment benefits, half didn’t, and about 2 million who did receive benefits exhausted them by early 2010.

Those who exhausted benefits had a poverty rate of 18%, compared to 13 percent among working-age adults; more than 40% had incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty line (below about $35,000 for a family of three), which is the level where many economists believe people start really struggling to pay for the basics.

While one might expect to see budgetary savings from reduced unemployment insurance payments, anti-poverty advocates say a shift in demand is more likely, as more people—especially families with children—turn to other safety net programs like food stamps, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Assistance will be much harder to come by for individuals or couples without children, especially since state General Assistance programs have been decimated.

It is all the more alarming—as National Employment Law Project executive director Christine Owens testifiedin Congress this week—that older workers ages 50 and up are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the long-term unemployed. They made up over 29 percent of long-term unemployed workers in 2011, compared to just 26 percent in 2007.

In 2011, more than 54% of older jobless workers were out of work for at least six months, and those high rates have continued into 2012. Owens noted that prolonged periods of unemployment can have a severe impact on older workers’ retirement prospects and later-life well-being.

In addition to legislation protecting older workers from discrimination, Owens urged Congress to invest insubsidized employment and workforce development and job training programs—vital to unemployed workers of all ages.

According to the Center for Law and Social Policy, a 2005 study of 7 States found that adults and dislocated workers receiving Workforce Investment Act (WIA) services—including job training—were 10 percentage points more likely to be employed and to have higher earnings (about $800 per quarter in 2000 dollars) than those who hadn’t received services. They were also less likely to need public assistance. A 2011 study by Washington State found that WIA services boost employment and earnings for adults, dislocated workers and youth.

House Republicans are attempting to “reform” federal workforce programs through the positively Orwellian-named “Workforce Investment Improvement Act.” When they say reform, they mean pulling out their handy-dandy, favorite tool: the block grant.

Shaw says: “Basically, the legislation would throw funding that currently is used for specialized training programs into one big pot—and reduce the amount of money in that pot.”

It’s true that job-training programs need improvement but simply cutting funding and eliminating programs won’t do a thing to help anyone. What is needed is a serious effort along the lines of what economists Dean Baker of the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research, and Kevin Hassett of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, describe in a New York Times op-ed:

Policy makers must come together and recognize that this is an emergency, and fashion a comprehensive re-employment policy that addresses the specific needs of the long-term unemployed. A policy package…should spend money to help expand public and private training programs with proven track records; expand entrepreneurial opportunities by increasing access to small-business financing; reduce government hurdles to the formation of new businesses; and explore subsidies for private employers who hire the long-term unemployed.… Managers who are filling open [government] positions should be given explicit incentives to reconnect these lost workers.

If there isn’t enough urgency for legislators and their constituents already, people should consider this: things are about to get worse. Not only did Congress fail to address the look back earlier this year, it also made changes that will shorten the number of weeks people can receive temporary, federally funded benefits after exhausting their state-run programs. Those reductions will begin at the end of this month.

“It’s not going to be as dramatic as the end of the Extended Benefits program—there won’t be hundreds of thousands of people losing their benefits all at once,” says Shaw. “But the changes are coming down the pipeline and will affect people in every state. The UI program will look very different in a few months than it does today.”

So Rich, So Poor by Peter Edelman

When it comes to public policy and poverty in the United States, few people know more about it than Georgetown University law professor Peter Edelman. He has battled poverty for nearly fifty years, most notably as a legislative assistant to Senator Robert Kennedy and as an assistant secretary of health and human services in the Clinton administration—a post he resigned in protest over the 1996 welfare reform bill. He’s taught and written extensively on the subject, too, including his new book, So Rich, So Poor: Why It’s So Hard to End Poverty in America.

Full disclosure: Edelman is a friend of mine and a mentor when it comes to anti-poverty work. I also had the opportunity to advise him on this book. Still, I wouldn’t be writing this if I didn’t value the book, nor would he want me to.

So Rich, So Poor is a sweeping historical account and analysis of anti-poverty policy that will give readers a sense of where this nation has been—and where it’s headed—with regard to confronting (or failing to confront) poverty. Edelman examines the challenges of concentrated and intergenerational poverty, the safety net, the plight of those in deep poverty, disconnected youth, low-wage work, race and gender issues, housing policy and much, much more.

If you are a layperson, the book is a chance to absorb more than you probably ever realized is at the heart of the fight against poverty; if you are someone who has long been involved in the fight against poverty, I have little doubt you will find new ideas, angles or inspiration in these pages.

This is a man who has devoted a lifetime to fighting poverty and is passing along what he’s learned. It’s a gift, frankly.”

“The role of Zionist Ashkenazi in the Bolshevik Soviet Revolution…”

You may read the first part of the story https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/super-nationalist-zionism-contributed-to-the-rise-of-the-third-reich/

I had heard rumors of the direct connection of Zionist Ashkenazi in the October Soviet revolution, but what Nalliah Thayabharan is relating in black on white could be an account worth reflecting upon. I did my best to remove redundant paragraphs and repetitions, but the anger and frustration is there.

This is the continuation of Nalliah’s story:

“Long ago, there was a Medieval Kingdom of Khazaria, 652-1016 AD that included part of modern-day Russia, Ukraine, and a sliver of what is current Kazakhstan.  When considering the choice of Islam, Christianity or Judaism the leaders of this ’empire’ decided to declare themselves Jewish. That was a very odd choice in an area of the world which was predominately Islam and Christian.

The Khazaria Empire could not extend any further south because the Tatars and Turkmen proved to be about as obstinate as the Afghans have been throughout history.

The Khazarian ‘Jews’ are NOT descendants of the 12 Tribes of Israel and their world view, and of pious spiritual Judaism have created conflict within that religion ever since.

To a great extent, these are our current day Zionist Ashkenazi Jews (including Neocons, of course) who have formed a world power banking, extortion cult of war and death that has little or nothing to do with being devout adherents of Judaism. These are the folks who think nothing of breaking the law, lying (Kol Nidre), stealing, graft, corruption, assassination, blackmail, extortion or destroying tens of millions of people to get their way.

Throughout the past century, these Zionist obeyed only the Talmud, not the laws of the lands they live in. This very behavior and ‘ethics’ appear, in fact, in the Talmud as Rabbinical teaching. Most pious Jews of good heart and conscience who follow the Torah know that such is not the way to achieve civilized, enlightened society.

This is one of the reasons “Jew haters” have often been unable to differentiate between the truly religious descendants of the 12 Tribes of Israel (the ones the Old Testament of the Bible is about) and these squatters who came from Central Asia and have taken over their religion and turned it into an evil club of power manipulation, greed, money, war, death and destruction.

Many true Torah Jews are highly offended at the atrocities these Zionist Khazar Talmudic Jews have inflicted on mankind. From the huge massacre of Russian Christians, to the mass starvation holocaust of 30 million Ukrainians, to the creation of Nazism/fascism of World War II, to the mass slaughter of Christian Armenians, and to the current day blood-lust genocide of Iraq.

The Zionist Khazars have made it abundantly clear that they have nothing but murderous contempt of Christians and Muslims.

The problem is not ‘the Jews’…the problem is the KHAZAR Jews who are THE power behind Zionist Israel, in the UK and US.

Just as the Himalaya Mountains are the geologic division between the continent of Asia and the continent of India, the Caucasus Mountains separate Central Asia and Europe. Geologically and geographically speaking, Georgia is NOT part of Europe.

Georgia was apparently never part of the Khazar empire and was predominately Christian until recent times. Most of current Ukraine used to be part of the Khazaria Empire. Georgia, a predominately Muslim, non-European nation, is developing steadily more under the control of Khazar Zionist US Jews and their Muslim confederates.

The Georgian people have been experiencing constant provocations aimed at Russia from the Zionist West.

For example, Georgia is a good place to set up bases to wage covert war and black ops against Russia, which is now geographically sitting on what used to be the Khazaria Empire. That is why there are thousands Israeli and Blackwater mercenaries in Georgia now.

The deep-seated hatred of Russia by these Khazars goes back over 1,000 years ago, when Russia crushed their empire and many of them fled to Europe into the areas now called Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Ukraine. Those who remained were under Russian rule for a while but even that changed in about 100 years time.

During the 10th century, the East Slavs were united under Scandinavian overlordship. A new nation, Kievan Rus, was formed by Prince Oleg. Just as the Khazars had left their mark on other people, so too did they influence the Rus. The Rus and the Hungarians both adopted the dual-kingship system of the Khazars. The Rus princes even borrowed the title kagan.

Archaeologists recovered a variety of Khazar or Khazar-style objects (including clothing and pottery) from Viking gravesites in Chernigov, Gnezdovo, Kiev, and even Birka (Sweden). The residents of Kievan Rus patterned their legal procedures after the Khazars. In addition, some Khazar words became part of the old East Slavic language: for example, bogatyr (“brave knight”) apparently derives from the Khazar word baghatur.

The Rus inherited most of the former Khazar lands in the late 10th century and early 11th century. One of the most devastating defeats came in 965, when Rus Prince Svyatoslav conquered the Khazar fortress of Sarkel. It is believed that he conquered Itil two years later, after which he campaigned in the Balkans. Despite the loss of their nation, the Khazar people did not disappear. Some of them migrated westward into Hungary, Romania, and Poland, mixing with other Jewish communities.

Both the Russians and remaining Khazars had to flee for their lives when the Mongol hordes took over most of Asia under the leadership of Genghis Khan, 1161-1227. Many of these Khazar Jews had no choice but to flee to the Russian north-east regions.

These were the “Jews” that came into power in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution.  Lenin needed their help to topple Tsar Nicholas, the last remnant of the Romanov dynasty. They helped overthrow Tsar Nicholas because he was not friendly to the Khazar Jews. These were the Zionist Jews who murdered 40 million Russians who refused to give up their land or bow down to Bolshevik-Khazarian-Zionism.

In January of 1916, Leon Trotsky was expelled from France and came to USA. His expenses were paid by Jacob Schiff who was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and had raised the capital for large war loans to Japan. It was due to this funding that the Japanese were able to launch a stunning attack against the Russians at Port Arthur and the following year to virtually decimate the Russian fleet.

Mind you that Jacob Schiff was a Khazar Jew and that Khazarian Jews had been persecuted under the Tsarist regime.

According to Leon Trotsky who visited the USA on many occasions, he enjoyed a chauffeured limousine placed at his service.  In his book “My Life”, Leon Trotsky wrote:

..the chauffeur was a magician, a titan, a superman! With the wave of his hand he made the machine obey his slightest command. To sit beside him was the supreme delight. When they went into a tea room, the boys would anxiously demand of their mother, “Why doesn’t the chauffeur come in?” (Leon Trotsky: My Life, 1930, p. 277)

When Trotsky returned to Petrograd in May of 1917 to organize the Bolshevik phase of the Russian Revolution, he carried $10,000 for travel expenses, a generously fund considering the value of the dollar at that time. Trotsky was arrested by Canadian and British naval personnel, when the ship, on which he was traveling, the S.S. Kristianiafjord, put in at Halifax.

The money in Trotsky possession is now a matter of official record. The source of that money has been the focus of much speculation, but the evidence strongly suggests that its origin was the German government.

Trotsky was not arrested on a whim. He was recognized as a threat to the best interests of England: Canada was still within the British Commonwealth. Tsarist regime was an ally of England in the First World War. What would weaken Russia – internal revolution – would strengthen Germany and weaken England.

In New York on the night before his departure, Trotsky had given a speech, in which he said:

“I am going back to Russia to overthrow the provisional government and stop the war with Germany.” Trotsky therefore represented a real threat to England’s war effort. He was arrested as a German agent and taken as a prisoner of war.

Telegrams immediately telegrams began to come into Halifax from such divergent sources, as an obscure attorney in New York City, from the Canadian Deputy Postmaster-General and even from a high-ranking British military officer, all inquiring into Trotsky’s situation and urging his immediate release.

The head of the British Secret Service in USA was Sir William Wiseman. He occupied the apartment directly above the apartment of Edward Mandell House and who had become fast friends with Mandell. Edward Mandell House advised Sir William Wiseman that US President Woodrow Wilson wished to have Trotsky released. Wiseman advised his British government. And the British Admiralty issued orders on April 21st to release Trotsky.

Trotsky could not have gone even as far as Halifax without having been granted an American passport and this was accomplished by the personal intervention of US President Woodrow Wilson.

Although Jews have never made up more than 5% of the population of Russia, they played a highly disproportionate and decisive role in the Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years.

With the exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in (1917-20) were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party’s executive secretary and – as chairman of the Central Executive Committee- head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky

Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew.

In the Communist seizure of power in Russia, the Jewish role was very critical.

Story to be followed.

Notehttps://adonis49.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/who-are-the-israelites/


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

Blog Stats

  • 964,235 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 474 other followers

%d bloggers like this: