Okay you “balance the budget” politicians and their supporters, explain your plan to me, because I just can’t make any sense of it in anyway shape or form.
Let’s cut education by huge amounts, including teachers’ salaries and the right to organize. Does that not make for a situation where we get poorer and poorer trained teachers which leads to less well educated students who have a lesser chance of competing in a global economy. When I was a kid, anyone could afford to go to college and not accumulate backbreaking debt which makes the bankers richer but damages the rest of the economy. Shouldn’t we be pumping money into higher education to keep the economy going?
We complain about debt so let’s privatize social security, which again makes big bucks for private insurers as the expense seniors. If you don’t steal from the program it is less likely to go bankrupt. And if we need to raise rates, raise them because the long term costs without social security are going to be far greater.
Why punish the poor and those who need Medicare for not having the advantages of the wealthy. After all with the economic socialism that is currently at play the poor are paying subsidies to the rich as is on both state and national levels. (Socialism = redistributing the wealth of the country from one group to another.) Socialism is what we are practicing currently where we constantly use regressive tax systems. The original idea of socialism sounds biblical; to whom much is given much is required. Why is that considered subversive.
If you do away with the social programs that actually help people, what are you going to do when they become more and more of a cost to society? Fix the abuses but don’t end the programs, that’s just insane. I used to sit on a board that helped low income folk, many students, trade services to folks who had a home but needed help in maintaining their homes. It was one of those win win situations. But the Minnesota state government is its unwisdom would make every social program justify itself every three year or they would not fund the program any more. This program had a staff of one, who had to spend a ridiculous amount of time doing that justifying thus taking time away from those who benefited from it. Finally, she quit in disgust. Shouldn’t the government take responsibility for the fact checking? That’s what taxes are for.
And why they hell are you so bent on tax savings for the corporations and the ultra rich? At least you could put tax rates back to Reagan era times. The more you make the more you should pay. The last 35 years have told us clearly that supply side economics (let the money of the rich trickle down to the middle and lower classes) just plain doesn’t work. Just look at the decrease in the standard of living over that period of time for the middle class.
And while you are complaining about national debt do you ever take responsibility for your creating it. Reagan’s administration tripled the national debt and the Bush administration doubled it, but you now blame the current administration for all the debt.
If you are so gung ho on balancing the budget, you must all be secret fans of Bill Clinton, the only one who created a budget surplus in that last 30 years, which G W Bush promptly spent.
As Ricky Ricardo might say, "You got some 'splaining to do Lucy."
No comments:
Post a Comment