Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core
by Sam Beli 8 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
jws
I agree. The author is either dishonest or delusional.
The economy works when everybody has money to spend, not just the rich.
We gave money to the banks. Are they using it to help with the mortgage defaults? Not if they're still spending millions on bonuses, luxury trips, aquiring other banks, etc. In my opinion, the banks can't be trusted. Let's try a different approach.
I know what the author doesn't like. I'm not sure what he's proposing instead. I kind of think he's saying we need to start with the banks. Doling out more money to the banks isn't necessarily the answer, especially if they're not spending wisely. If you give a junkie $20 to help him pay his rent and he just uses it to buy more drugs, do you give him another $20? And another $20 after that? Maybe you need a different approach.
People who aren't spending a ton of money on health care have more disposable income. People who don't have health care, but can afford it will be able to get help with their issues. That means they miss less work, live longer, and earn more money. Again, it results in more disposable income. More income means you may be able to pay that mortgage after all and that helps the banks.
Drilling in Alaska isn't finding new energy sources. It's finding more of the same energy source. Let's develop new, more efficient technologies. Maybe we can become self-reliant and then be able to export energy at a profit. The good news is it will create jobs and industries. The bad is that this could become a source of great income and only a few at the top of the energy company will see the profits. And trickle down economics doesn't seem to work. The only trickling down that happens is the poor getting pissed on.
Educated people make more money than non-educated ones. More disposable income. That's not an immediate fix because you have to wait for the people to be educated. But it will help long-term.
They're all great goals. Whether they're right for right now must be evaluated. What we need right now is jobs. And jobs only get created when there's a need, when people are spending money.
-
VIII
"Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime. "
-
Hittman
I don't see anything dishonest here.
He's making the point that our current crisis has nothing to do with health care, education, or environmental concerns.
He's right. -
leavingwt
Time Magazine: Is Obama Trying to Do Too Much?
But moderate Democrats in Congress may douse some of Obama's grander ambitions. As infuriating as that is to progressives eager to seize on this "good crisis," it's a natural by-product of giving the vote to Americans who live in coal- burning, oil-drilling, far-driving and heavy-manufacturing regions. One such place is Indiana, whose Democratic Senator, Evan Bayh, will be tough to sell every line of the Obama budget to. "I've spent some time with the President, and my strong impression of him is, at the end of the day, he's a pragmatist," Bayh says. Translation: Obama will take what he can get.
The thing nostalgic Democrats forget about Social Security is that it did not come in the first year of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency or even in the second. The major initiatives of the New Deal passed only after F.D.R. had convinced Americans that he had his priorities straight. His immediate attention to issues like the run on banks and sky-high unemployment gave him a congressional landslide in 1934 that ratified his 1932 victory. That's when he grew strong enough to pass his broader agenda. The best way not to "waste a good crisis" is to put the stress on "crisis." Once Obama does that, the antsy gang on Wall Street and in Washington will have to pay attention.
-
BurnTheShips
Social Security? Ahh yes. The greatest Ponzi scheme in American history. The funny thing is that back then they pitched it as personal savings for old age. Every year they send you a little statement showing how much you've paid in and how much your benefit is. What a crock. In reality the funds collected are used to fund current retirees and the federal government's perpetual deficit. By law, once the fund is exhausted, benefits are automatically reduced. That means that no worker has any legal right to reclaim his SS contributions, much less any interest on it, to pay for his retirement. If SS were a true retirement system, each participant would have an enforceable claim on his own account, how the assets are invested and would be able to pass it on to his heirs. SS is a Ponzi scheme. Like other Ponzi schemes, it only works as long as current participants are willing to rely on future participants for an ever-increasing flow of money. Like all Ponzi schemes, it will eventually hit the brick wall of reality. The system will be bankrupt in as little as a decade.
BTS
-
Elsewhere
> Social Security? Ahh yes. The greatest Ponzi scheme in American history...
OMG... the world is about to come to an end. I actually agree with something Mr. Burns said!
-
BurnTheShips
We'll get you to come around Elsewhere.
BTS
-
VIII
"Social Security? Ahh yes. The greatest Ponzi scheme in American history. "
Perfectly stated.