Dennis and Mary
"Poverty, Politics and Homelesness in America"
Dennis and Mary
There can be tremendous power in a well-made polemic. John Steinbeck's “The Grapes of Wrath” or ‘Of Mice and Men” immediately come to mind. Artists have used their art as a platform for change, attempting to sway public and political opinion, since at least the time of Socrates. Art, unlike politics, offers no pretense of objectivity. There is only the artist’s intent. This can be frustrating for the realist or legalist who demands that the facts are the only thing that matter. Life, by its nature, is never that transparent. There are simply too many variables, most of which are unseen. It is those unseen forces exerted on our lives daily that help to shape our fortune, good or bad, to say nothing of our biological nature, whatever that might really be.
If we are lucky enough to be born into a wealthy and free society with abundant educational and economic opportunity, and luckier still, to be born with the right complexion and the right connection, we will have a very big hand up on the vast majority of people in the world. This handful of variables is sufficient to make our lives better in every way that really counts. For most of us, it isn’t privilege by design, hard work or sacrifice, but a simple roll of the dice. This is too often forgotten by the American people, remarkably so, given the Judeo-Christian tradition that under-girds our culture. It should surprise no one, then, when our religious traditions are reshaped to reflect our modern society, often times in a way that is completely indifferent to the historical facts.
Jesus was a Jew living in occupied territory, under the thumb of the greatest imperial power of the age. He was poor by birth, marginalized even within the hierarchical social structure of the Jewish culture of his time. He championed the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger—traditions that were already deeply embedded in Hebrew tradition—but long since forgotten by Israel's rulers as the children of Israel prospered. Eventually, the people of God were turned into bond slaves and the Temple of Solomon (the house of God) was destroyed by the Babylonians, and they were driven from their homeland. They were then occupied by the Persians and, ultimately, by the Romans. This is, perhaps, the central message woven into the whole fabric of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and, the perspective from which it is eventually organized. A statement of what God expects from his people, mercy towards the poor and the disaffected—those who know that they are lost and are desperate to be found—a light to a world in darkness. This is a message that Americans and, in particular, Christians would do well to remember.
Jesus used parables as his primary method of teaching. A parable is really just an extended metaphor, not a literal history or economics lesson. He told stories that were intended to make people think differently about themselves, how they related to others, and how they related to the kingdom of God, which he saw as the rule and reign of God in the hearts of men.
I freely admit that there is an element of propaganda about this piece, which is my intention. The economic reality in the global economy is seldom ever really addressed, primarily because it requires a level of knowledge that eludes even the most thoughtful observers.
The banks listed in the film were only a few of the worst offenders in terms of financial recklessness. The problem is one that runs so deep throughout the global economy that it will be remarkably hard to fix. To suggest that Dennis and Mary (and others like them) aren't victims of this Ponzi scheme is to see too little of the picture. They, like everyone else, are personally responsible for poor choices. But in a world where working class people frequently have tens of thousand dollars of personal debt, Dennis and Mary are more like canaries in the coal mine.
There can be tremendous power in a well-made polemic. John Steinbeck's “The Grapes of Wrath” or ‘Of Mice and Men” immediately come to mind. Artists have used their art as a platform for change, attempting to sway public and political opinion, since at least the time of Socrates. Art, unlike politics, offers no pretense of objectivity. There is only the artist’s intent. This can be frustrating for the realist or legalist who demands that the facts are the only thing that matter. Life, by its nature, is never that transparent. There are simply too many variables, most of which are unseen. It is those unseen forces exerted on our lives daily that help to shape our fortune, good or bad, to say nothing of our biological nature, whatever that might really be.
If we are lucky enough to be born into a wealthy and free society with abundant educational and economic opportunity, and luckier still, to be born with the right complexion and the right connection, we will have a very big hand up on the vast majority of people in the world. This handful of variables is sufficient to make our lives better in every way that really counts. For most of us, it isn’t privilege by design, hard work or sacrifice, but a simple roll of the dice. This is too often forgotten by the American people, remarkably so, given the Judeo-Christian tradition that under-girds our culture. It should surprise no one, then, when our religious traditions are reshaped to reflect our modern society, often times in a way that is completely indifferent to the historical facts.
Jesus was a Jew living in occupied territory, under the thumb of the greatest imperial power of the age. He was poor by birth, marginalized even within the hierarchical social structure of the Jewish culture of his time. He championed the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger—traditions that were already deeply embedded in Hebrew tradition—but long since forgotten by Israel's rulers as the children of Israel prospered. Eventually, the people of God were turned into bond slaves and the Temple of Solomon (the house of God) was destroyed by the Babylonians, and they were driven from their homeland. They were then occupied by the Persians and, ultimately, by the Romans. This is, perhaps, the central message woven into the whole fabric of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and, the perspective from which it is eventually organized. A statement of what God expects from his people, mercy towards the poor and the disaffected—those who know that they are lost and are desperate to be found—a light to a world in darkness. This is a message that Americans and, in particular, Christians would do well to remember.
Jesus used parables as his primary method of teaching. A parable is really just an extended metaphor, not a literal history or economics lesson. He told stories that were intended to make people think differently about themselves, how they related to others, and how they related to the kingdom of God, which he saw as the rule and reign of God in the hearts of men.
I freely admit that there is an element of propaganda about this piece, which is my intention. The economic reality in the global economy is seldom ever really addressed, primarily because it requires a level of knowledge that eludes even the most thoughtful observers.
The banks listed in the film were only a few of the worst offenders in terms of financial recklessness. The problem is one that runs so deep throughout the global economy that it will be remarkably hard to fix. To suggest that Dennis and Mary (and others like them) aren't victims of this Ponzi scheme is to see too little of the picture. They, like everyone else, are personally responsible for poor choices. But in a world where working class people frequently have tens of thousand dollars of personal debt, Dennis and Mary are more like canaries in the coal mine.
This video is only partly about homelessness, it’s every bit as much about how we respond to issues like this, which is too often articulated as, “They must have done something more than lose their jobs. They must be alcoholics or drug addicts.” implying that those who succeed do so primarily because of pure determination and hard work and those that don’t are victims of their own sloth and lack of character. Only a fool, or a child oblivious to history and the broader global reality, is likely to see the world in such narrow terms.
On the other hand, the issue of personal accountability can't be overstated. People are more than symbols of our personal political beliefs. Accountability, however, is even more meaningful when talking about billion dollar institutions like banks or Wall Street, to say nothing of congress or the president.
The first person to see the video was someone whom I've known for nearly forty years. She told me that, after watching the film, she began to cry—and then confessed that her family was only one paycheck away from being in exactly the same place as Dennis and Mary.
The second response was from another old friend who said it was very moving, but didn't like the Obama bashing. Intriguing, since I never said anything negative about the president, merely quoted him. The other responses have been similar; with some simply wanting to help and others using it as an excuse to blame one political party or the other. There is the bigger picture, however, one with a moral as well as economic significance for all of us, including our government.
The government under both parties has engaged in crony capitalism, by this I do not mean capitalism or free markets—of which I am an advocate—but a combination of private interests and government colluding to rig the game to favor special interests at the expense of the taxpayer. All of the banks mentioned in the video were among the most reckless in terms of investment and risk, primarily because they understood the implicit guarantee being offered by the Federal government. This was, on the one hand, born out of the good intentions of some politicians and, on the other, a payoff to wealthy and powerful constituents. The result was achieved by expanding the credit base and making housing and credit available to people who couldn't, under normal circumstances, meet the basic requirements, like steady employment, a decent credit history and some financial reserves. Its intent was to compel banks to lend to unqualified applicants or deal with having their government underwritten FDIC insurance cut off, putting most banks out of business, or, at the very least, heavily marginalized. Another way was through government securitized institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; both are privately owned companies that are underwritten by the federal government.
On the other hand, the issue of personal accountability can't be overstated. People are more than symbols of our personal political beliefs. Accountability, however, is even more meaningful when talking about billion dollar institutions like banks or Wall Street, to say nothing of congress or the president.
The first person to see the video was someone whom I've known for nearly forty years. She told me that, after watching the film, she began to cry—and then confessed that her family was only one paycheck away from being in exactly the same place as Dennis and Mary.
The second response was from another old friend who said it was very moving, but didn't like the Obama bashing. Intriguing, since I never said anything negative about the president, merely quoted him. The other responses have been similar; with some simply wanting to help and others using it as an excuse to blame one political party or the other. There is the bigger picture, however, one with a moral as well as economic significance for all of us, including our government.
The government under both parties has engaged in crony capitalism, by this I do not mean capitalism or free markets—of which I am an advocate—but a combination of private interests and government colluding to rig the game to favor special interests at the expense of the taxpayer. All of the banks mentioned in the video were among the most reckless in terms of investment and risk, primarily because they understood the implicit guarantee being offered by the Federal government. This was, on the one hand, born out of the good intentions of some politicians and, on the other, a payoff to wealthy and powerful constituents. The result was achieved by expanding the credit base and making housing and credit available to people who couldn't, under normal circumstances, meet the basic requirements, like steady employment, a decent credit history and some financial reserves. Its intent was to compel banks to lend to unqualified applicants or deal with having their government underwritten FDIC insurance cut off, putting most banks out of business, or, at the very least, heavily marginalized. Another way was through government securitized institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; both are privately owned companies that are underwritten by the federal government.
Franklin Raines was the former chairman and chief executive officer of Fannie Mae, as well as the White House budget director under President Bill Clinton and economic advisor to President Obama. He was directly responsible for the pilot program that lowered the standards for home ownership—making him and a lot of others very wealthy while helping to undermine the foundation of much of the nation’s prosperity. He certainly wasn't alone, Wall Street investors were all too happy to take part in this new investment opportunity that came as the result of expanding home ownership to unqualified applicants—creating new profit streams for global investors and subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer.
The Federal Reserve played the major role in precipitating the economic collapse by printing money and lending it at low costs to favored banks. Politicians created new legislation that eased the standard for borrowing for both businesses and individuals. This facilitated reckless lending, extending to every other credit-based industry from auto loans to credit cards, engendering a national spending binge and creating an economy built substantially on leverage and debt. All of this was underwritten by the Federal Government and paid for, ultimately, by the American people, including Dennis and Mary, in the form of a boom and bust economy with too many workers and too few jobs. This has been an ongoing problem for several decades—perhaps as early as the late 1960s—or maybe as early as the creation of a central banking system in 1913. It is a problem that every first world nation eventually must deal with—if China and India continue to grow, it will become their problem too, as it was for the Japanese within a few decades of their own renaissance. Both the Tea Party and the Wall-Street protestors understand that there is a problem; although, many people in either movement seem more like the blind men groping the different parts of an elephant, attempting to define what it is based solely on their one point of contact.
As the head of a group of subprime loan officers at the peak of the market, I had a front row seat to the most recent collapse and its aftermath. There is no one person to blame; Presidents have relatively little power to effect change. Congress, by comparison, both controls the purse strings of the nation and the laws that govern it. The Federal Reserve can control the money supply and the cost of borrowing, and with the wave of the legislative wand, congress can make every one of us pay for it. This has been true for every president for the better part of the past 100 years no matter which party they belong to. In the end, it's not what well-intentioned politicians believe that matters, but the real world consequences of their actions—and their impact on all of us—including Dennis and Mary.
Mark Magula
The Federal Reserve played the major role in precipitating the economic collapse by printing money and lending it at low costs to favored banks. Politicians created new legislation that eased the standard for borrowing for both businesses and individuals. This facilitated reckless lending, extending to every other credit-based industry from auto loans to credit cards, engendering a national spending binge and creating an economy built substantially on leverage and debt. All of this was underwritten by the Federal Government and paid for, ultimately, by the American people, including Dennis and Mary, in the form of a boom and bust economy with too many workers and too few jobs. This has been an ongoing problem for several decades—perhaps as early as the late 1960s—or maybe as early as the creation of a central banking system in 1913. It is a problem that every first world nation eventually must deal with—if China and India continue to grow, it will become their problem too, as it was for the Japanese within a few decades of their own renaissance. Both the Tea Party and the Wall-Street protestors understand that there is a problem; although, many people in either movement seem more like the blind men groping the different parts of an elephant, attempting to define what it is based solely on their one point of contact.
As the head of a group of subprime loan officers at the peak of the market, I had a front row seat to the most recent collapse and its aftermath. There is no one person to blame; Presidents have relatively little power to effect change. Congress, by comparison, both controls the purse strings of the nation and the laws that govern it. The Federal Reserve can control the money supply and the cost of borrowing, and with the wave of the legislative wand, congress can make every one of us pay for it. This has been true for every president for the better part of the past 100 years no matter which party they belong to. In the end, it's not what well-intentioned politicians believe that matters, but the real world consequences of their actions—and their impact on all of us—including Dennis and Mary.
Mark Magula