Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Wall Street Takes Welfare It Begrudges to Ordinary Americans

By Mimi Abramovitz, Women's eNews. Posted September 25, 2008.


Why is it that the rich and reckless accept "welfare" for themselves while rejecting it for those who need it most, particularly woman.
womensenewslogo
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Today we sit and watch as the high-rolling gamblers and critics of "big government" take welfare. These are many of the same people who thought it was just fine to deprive millions of women of critical resources and let them fend for themselves.

Even before the catastrophic news out of Wall Street in recent days, women have been worried about their economic security.

Last March a Gallup poll found that in the past two years more women than men said that they worry about the economy (64 percent versus 57 percent). The same holds for health care, crime, the environment, drug use, unemployment, hunger and homelessness.

More men are employed by Wall Street and more men have money invested there. That means the male anxiety meter is probably much higher now that they risk losing their jobs, pensions, portfolios and homes. But women's worries have probably shot up even more.

Women are likely to lead in the economic-anxiety gap because distressing economic events fall harder on people with less. "I don't play the stock market, but it does affect us. It affects me personally. It affects the little guy," a female dispatch supervisor of a limo company that serves investment bank employees recently told the New York Times.

The same holds for all the secretaries and housekeepers who keep investment houses clean and running.

Decades of Lost Ground

But what makes the bailout of the fat tomcats so galling is that women at the bottom of the economic ladder have lost ground during the last 30 years, with very few seeming to notice or care.

From F.D.R.'s New Deal in the 1930s to L.B.J.'s Great Society in the 1970s, the expansion of government programs for the middle class and the poor -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public assistance, as well as health and social services -- provided a modest economic backup for women who predominate among recipients.

Great Depression leaders who saw government as the solution to that economic crisis bailed out banks in exchange for tighter regulations to curb speculation. But they also created cash-assistance programs that increased women's purchasing power and protected them against economic hardship.

Those programs redistributed income downward and expanded the capacity of the federal government to kick-start the economy while cushioning consumers and workers from the vagaries of the market.

Beginning with President Carter in the mid 1970s, our leaders changed their tune, blaming economic woes on "big government." Successive administrations relaxed the rules on financial markets and cut funding for the safety net.

Benefits Didn't Trickle Down

Advocates of "less government" promised that benefits would "trickle down" to the rest of us. Instead their laissez-faire strategy weakened government benefits, one of the three interlocking pillars of economic support counted on by thousands of women from all walks of life.

The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that government spending for domestic discretionary programs fell from a high of 4.8 percent of national output, or gross domestic product, in 1978 to 3.4 percent in 2007. That equals billions of dollars in cuts. Except for rising health care costs, spending on entitlement programs -- such as Social Security, unemployment insurance and public assistance -- also fell from 8.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 1983 to 7 percent in 2007.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: women, economy, poverty, recession, economic collapse, financial crisis, wall street bailout

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Here's what I think of about the greedy bastards that got us into this mess.
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Sep 25, 2008 12:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(Expletive deleted! Expletive deleted! Expletive deleted!)

John McCain--OLD ideas, OLD solutions, OLD lobby connections
For more reasons why JM should not be president
of the United States, click on: Vote Against McCain

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is everything about sexism and gender issues?
Posted by: cordas on Sep 25, 2008 1:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry but what a load of garbage... more men work in Wallstreet than women therefore this is all about destroying women or some such garbage....

Being poor is a genderless problem, yes its hard for women, its even harder for single mothers, that doesn't mean all the men are laughing it up as they drink champaigne and light cigaretes with $20 notes.

This kind of rhetoric just pi$$es off men and creates issues between the genders when we should actually be pulling together!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As long as you vote Republican or Democrat, Wall $treet wins and Main Street LOSES !
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 25, 2008 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's no point in complaining about Wall $treet at this point unless you want to fix this problem long term by voting in 3rd/Independent Party progressive/liberal populists. Sure, there are a few good Democrats who are just that but since they rarely stand up for the people these days because they let the corrupt party leadership neuter them, they would be better off switching from Democrat to Independent. I would advise the same thing of Republicans sick and tired of trying to appease the Far Right. If a Republican or Democrat pol really wants to stand up for the people, the first thing they would do is switch to Independent. We can't just limit Independents to 1 in a 100 in the Senate and virtually none in the House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Note: Posted by: aussidawg
A corporatocracy will never be a government
Posted by: greentime on Sep 25, 2008 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A corporatocracy is just business being business. They don't want to provide services, they don't want to pay good wages, they won't provide insurance, pensions or real benefits. Aren't we all finding this to be happening? They don't even want to reinvest in their own infrastructure.

They exist solely to profit, profit, profit. More money to the few who run these mega-businesses. They want all wealth to be concentrated into their few big fat greedy hands and the rest of us are to be their wage slaves.

Doesn't that sound like our country today? Haven't we let a corporatocracy arise in our midst?

Let's create a real government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was waiting for Alternet to drag gender into this . . . Tomorrow - Latinos
Posted by: 6399 on Sep 25, 2008 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet always does this: take a serious problem, expound upon it for several days in a relatively straightforward manner, then, on day 3 or 4, drag gender into the equation when it needn't be.

Wait and see . . . tomorrow it will be a story about the Latino community being disproportionately affected by this meltdown, they are entitled to a greater share of bailout money because they were exploited on the front end, etc.

Bravo, Alternet

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a genderless issue.....
Posted by: bjandresen on Sep 25, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a woman and a feminist, but I agree with one of the earlier comments. Why turn this into a male/female opposition issue? I wanted to send this article around, as there were good points being made, but I realized that they would be lost in the now tired men vs. women diatribe. Come on folk, the ship is sinking, can't we just join forces and pull together?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One article? Posted by: kepstein7777
» And the answer is... Posted by: MartianBachelor
God damn racist America!
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Sep 25, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My newspaper today had a front page story that said because of the economic crisis we're in, Senator Obama has a "slight" lead over the Manchurian Candidate and his stupid hockey mom running mate.

"SLIGHT"?

If Barack were white, he would have a 25-point in the polls. Minimum.

God damn racist America. And that includes the Obama bashers on AlterNet (i.e. Karl.Ben) who are nothing but closet bigots.

God damn you all to HELL!

John McCain--OLD ideas, OLD solutions, OLD lobby connections
For more reasons why JM should not be president
of the United States, click on: Vote Against McCain
[reportedly the hottest anti-McCain site on the Web]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unbelievable! Article title completely misleading!
Posted by: Symp on Sep 25, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact the article title is so misleading suggests strongly an attempt at manipulation. Shame on Alternet for publishing that drivel!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, women are affected more.....
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Sep 25, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article makes some good points, however, I can see that many men will be upset. What I know is that it's Momma's baby, Poppa's maybe?! When men walk out - it's the Momma that has to do it all, raise the kids, pay the bills, nurture them all, etc. While many more women are working - many of them are not making those 6 figure incomes. Even as prices have risen, women are still paying a greater percentage of their salaries just to take care of the basics! At the same time many of those women are still being underpaid (just ask Lilly Ledbetter)!

Yes, there are families that are struggling also, yet with 2 incomes (sometimes 3), the American people are still struggling to ensure the bills are paid! As more and more that "American Dream" becomes elusive and more and more cannot afford basic living expenses the American workers once again get stuck with another tab! I think not! GWB has lost his mind if he thinks that more should be done to enable the very greediest of Wall Street! If Wall Street gets a bail-out - than Main Street damn sure needs to get more than just screwed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are more women in poverty than men, more men on wall street than women
Posted by: ladyoracle on Sep 25, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the goverment jumps to help the latter and doesn't give a damn about the former. There are poor men out there as well, and there are also women on wall street, but the numbers tell us what the gendered majorities are.

Do I think that's a big enough deal to make into a whole Alternet story?

Well, perhaps not, as the comments suggest. It's not that the observation isn't accurate, but that it's not the most helpful stance at a time when people who oppose the bailout need to stand together.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who's really draining the System.
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Sep 25, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the old days of AFDC Welfare it cost every citizen 25 cents a day for that program. Corporate welfare was at about 75 cents a day.
That was back in the early 90's. Today AFDC would cost 50 cents a day for the poor and 1.50
a day for the Corpies. What's wrong with this picture??
Seems the Corpies think they need more help than the poor. I don't know about you but I live on a small pension but I still have 50 cents a day for someone worse off than me,but, I damn sure have nothing for entities that fowl the air,the water, the poeple's health and now try to scare us into giving them a 'reward' for being bullshit money managers.
If we bail them out WE OWN THEM!!!!!!
Thank you Mr. President for making us the largest publically owned financial system on the planet. What?...That was'nt in the plan but
6 million job loses were? For shame!!!!
For such horrid mismanagement the Wall Streeters should commit public suicide,hung from their own golden ropes and every politician who voted for this bailout should be removed from office,NOW. If you're a candidate and you supported this bullshit,you should not be voted into office.
Welfare for the needy is insuring domestic tranquility. Bailing out the greedy brings us closer to Revolution. The reason we kicked England's ass was because all we did over here went to the wealthy over there. History will repeat itself again but it will be alot closer to home.
It's time to let the greedy go broke just so the needy can live. If the People get nothing from the bailout except a huge bill,then it's time to disband the system from DC to Wall St.
Jim Morrison said it best;
" They got the guns,but, we've got the numbers and we're taking over!"
Sanity in Government
Write-in Jeffrey7 (Smith) for Prez in '08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And I'm sick and tired of that stupid ad by Obama only talking about working women and leaving men !
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 25, 2008 10:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, he does "abortion", then he suddenly talks "working women". In his ad, the persecutions against working women can also be said of the working men. Obama should SHUT THE FUCK UP and include both men and women. He is not a populist if he thinks that dividing men and women up is that "great".

P.S.: In his ad, he replayed this part of his speech. "I want my daughters to be as equal as your sons." Ok, enough is enough. Politicians kids' regardless of gender will always be much better off than the kids of regular working class families regardless of gender. Thanks Obama for PUSHING me back to Ralph. And my wife is even angrier at Obama for using this SEXIST ad. Either give both genders an inclusion and calling it working class or SHUT THE FUCK UP !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Max, I agree with you. Posted by: Centavo
» RE: Max, I agree with you. Posted by: maxpayne
"First we kill all the CEO's!"
Posted by: bettyn on Sep 25, 2008 12:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, Shakespeare actually said lawyers, but you've got to admit this would be a good start in taking back our country. It's time to at least tar and feather some of these pigs and ride 'em of town on a rail!

In the meantime, "may the fleas of a thousand camels take residence in the armpit of your CEO."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a social class issue..Those who supported the Reps,must share responsibility for this.
Posted by: BlueGorilla on Sep 25, 2008 3:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Screw those greedmongers,as we here in the UK,along with the masses of the USA ,and the rest of the world, are feeling the savage effects of US capitalist bankruptcy.
Since the stolen election, of 2000,the markets have been allowed to do what they want,supported by a redistributive government,who take from the masses,to give to their own class.
The bailout proposals,are akin to the Iraq invasion,and the soon to begin oil drilling, an opportunity for the wealthy to take more..at your expense.Each crisis as Naomi Klein outlined recently,has presented the US ruling class government,with an excuse to give more power and more dollars to their pals.
I wouldn't call it socialism,(as some free market drongo's have ),only an idiot would do that.Socialism whether you like it or not,sets out motivated by the moral cause, of redistribution of wealth and power, to the great swathe of wealth producers.
This is instead a corporate grab for "everything",all power and all money.Nieve republican voters,who voted on the basis of homophobia or your misunderstanding of Christianity,now see the truth of your (not very )"free market".Your house will be lost,as those you saw as "morally upstanding",take your money,and show you a fat bare ass,as they sail into the sunset.
All of those,who have allowed yourselves to be so brainwashed,as to see fairness,and control of the corporate world,as communism,are as much responsible for this as any misseller of mortgages.You allowed this to happen,and I only wish it were you alone facing what you have sown.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do the math.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Sep 25, 2008 3:51 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women are like the rest of the US population. Too many vote Republican, regardless of how badly they're getting screwed. Why wouldn't Wall Street's rich and reckless take free money when they're practically being forced to take it by Idiot America?

Heck, there was even an article on Alternet this week saying married women favor McCain by 49%. And if single women favor him by 30%, and they're 26% of the voting age population, my math puts women's total support for McCain at @44%. Further keeping in mind the possible biases of that article, the % supporting McCain could be higher.

Considering all that Republicans have done for women in the areas of equal pay, sending their sons off to die in Iraq, and a thousand other reasons we all know, 44% may be a minority, but to me, it's rather like 44% of blacks voting for George Wallace...or 44% of environmentalists supporting Sarah Palin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jim Morrison
Posted by: BlueGorilla on Sep 27, 2008 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a killer on the road,his brain is squirming like a toad...was he predicting Reagan,Dubya or McBrainless though?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]