BREAKING: Deal reached on stimulus bill
By SilentPatriot Wednesday Feb 11, 2009 1:20pmDespite some minor missteps -- like underestimating the extent to which Republicans will bargain in bad faith while the economy collapses -- President Obama can today celebrate the success of his first major legislative push.
AP:
Moving with lightning speed, key lawmakers announced agreement Wednesday on a $789 billion economic stimulus measure designed to create millions of jobs in a nation reeling from recession. President Barack Obama could sign the bill within days.
"The middle ground we've reached creates more jobs than the original Senate bill and costs less than the original House bill," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of the participants in an exhausting and frenzied round of bargaining.The bill includes help for victims of the recession in the form of unemployment benefits, food stamps, health coverage and more, as well as billions for states that face the prospect of making deep cuts in their own programs.
It also preserves Obama's signature tax cut _ a break for millions of lower and middle income taxpayers, including those who don't earn enough to pay income taxes.
Login or Register to post comments.
So are the wingnuts still stomping their feet and holding their breath until they get their way? What a bunch of self serving morons.
Congratulations America!
there will be calls for more stimulus spending.
Obama's guaranteeing himself one term only.
of course there will be more money spent! He did promise to fix health care, improve education, repair infrastructure, prepare the US to compete (and hopefully lead) in the economy of tomorrow. These are all critical investment. It's not about how much is spent - it is about 'what is the return?'
The return from tax cuts for the top 1%, 2 misguided and mismanaged wars, lack of oversight and a beligerant policy attitude is what we are going through now.
the 2012 elections will depend on whether voters remember what Bush and Republican philosophies left the US and the world
The sound of freeper's heads exploding across America! LOL!
If you want to know what we're doing listen to one of the most successful investors in the World.
Jim Rogers Says Geithner Caused Crisis, Must Let Banks Fail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6sMOQCycpk
Rogers also mentions Sweden's approach as having been viable, which was nationalization.
First you let the banks fail. Then nationalize with the good assets.
Rogers doesn't use the word 'nationalize' because he might choke if he did.
He lays it right out. Geithner et al are paying off their buddies.
He said let them fail then let the solvent take them over, he didn't endorse Switzerland's approach, he just said it was better than what we are doing.
Obama is in for a cold lesson on this.
Here is another problem I have been warning of
China Needs U.S. Guarantees for Treasuries, Yu Says (Update2)
Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- China should seek guarantees that its $682 billion holdings of U.S. government debt won’t be eroded by “reckless policies,” said Yu Yongding, a former adviser to the central bank.
The U.S. “should make the Chinese feel confident that the value of the assets at least will not be eroded in a significant way,” Yu, who now heads the World Economics and Politics Institute at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said in response to e-mailed questions yesterday from Beijing. He declined to elaborate on the assurances needed by China, the biggest foreign holder of U.S. government debt.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206010...
not Switzerland!
I can't believe I did that,
NOTE TO SELF: Never make posts on Sweden after reading stories on WWII.
can't wait until they're voted out, or they're tried and in jail. Treasonous ba$tards each and every one of them. And they whined when the Dems didn't vote for the shite they wanted... effin' losers every single one of 'em...
funding for nasa, broadband, education, school construction, energy efficient government fleet and buildings, etc etc? if not america got hosed again by the gop and the dems went belly up again.
This site is out of control. How can you say Obama can celebrate something that is detrimental to the country in general?
This "stimulus" package has nothing of value for you and I. Only for the banksters and wall street executives! There isn't even a comprehensive plan for "fixing" what is broken!
Face it, Crooks and Liars, you are becoming the same entity that bears your domain. Crooks and Liars!
Obama is owned by Wall Street and the big money. So are the Republicans and Democrats!
Why can't you see this? Why are you so blind? Is it really that hard to see it considering the past 50 years of Democratic/Republican rule? What has it given you?!?! War after war, state terrorism (Iran Contra, Chilean Death Squads), that was all supported by your GOVERNMENT.
Wake up!
doing nothing and/or prolonging to do something would have been detrimental. Obama is handed this three weeks into his administration. wow
nothing of value? at all? really? Obama has done more to repair this country in the 3 weeks in office that Bush's 8 years! Give the guy 1/2 a chance before the sky falls down!
Dude, take a chill pill. It's only been 3 weeks, and while there are a few things I don't like that obama is doing, it's gonna take a while to undo 8 years of Bush crap.
Frankly, if you don't see how more efficient (hence less costly) government buildings and less dependence on oil, as well as other measures included in this bill, benefits you and me, you're just screaming to hear yourself scream.
Our government is far from perfect, but short of total revolution, it will take time to vote all the bastards out and get new, progressive officials in.
What's the problem? Aren't there other blogs you could go to?
things like that are of no value to people like you and I????
I'd say they are of value.
Politics is the art of the possible. It ain't poifick, but what the hell is?
Please differentiate between the 'Stimulus' package and the 'Bailout' package.
The 'Stimulus' has things that should have been done for some time, but congress was busy enriching the war profiteers.
It appears to have lost line items better left in, like things for education and gained line items better left out, like tax cuts.
The 'Bailout' is a travesty and a payoff to the Banksters. The plan announced yesterday could add $2.5 trillion to $9+ trillion already committed and $3+ trillion already spent.
I have great sympathy for some but not all of what you say.
It is the same MIC and CIA and I am distressed at that.
AliceX is correct.
I would also add to her point however, that "theTruth" is also correct in that Obama's real constituency is the ruling class - just not the same segments of the ruling class that are die hard republican.
Similar to FD Roosevelt. He was called a traitor to his class interests. What those fools didn't understand was that he was preserving the game FOR the continuance of capitalist social relations. The Republicans called him a socialist and all kinds of things like they now call Obama. What they don't understand is that Roosevelt (and Obama) developed policies to prevent a Russian style revolution. Had the level of depression experienced in the summer/autumn of 1932 had continued for another year or two, we may well have seen outright civil war resulting in a communist revolution.
Roosevelt saw it happen in Russia, and he saw the opposite going down in germany, so he knew he had to tread a pathh between: give the working class enough bread and circuses to stave off a revolution from below, and limit the power for unlimited depradation from above to prevent a fascist takeover. As it was, there was a fascist plot to murder Roosevelt and install a military dictatorship that was foiled by testimony by Smeldey Butler.
So, while I agree with AliceX, theTruth's post is still quite valid.
Right on.
it is the class struggle carried on by those who view the world from an entirely different perspective.
I responded to you another time here.
My response was narrow and limited. You said:
Marx was not a Marxist as we have come to understand the term after Lenin and Trotsky.
Marx predicted that Capitalism would collapse of its own inherent corruption. Lenin with Trotsky as Military Commissar decided not to wait around for the collapse.
Today Marx's prediction is more germane than every.
I call myself a socialist. I will lend whatever hand I am able to the collapse of capitalism, but I can say here it will not have a rifle in it.
So far Capitalism is collapsing thoroughly without my help. The struggle is to not go down with it.
And after the revolution, when you disagree with the latter-day Lenins and Stalins over the implementation of their latest 5-year agricultural program, you'll find yourself in a gulag near Marquette or being shot in the back of the head in the woodlands near Bad Axe. Kinda like the Mensheviks.
Surely you can find better examples than the Bolsheviks.
between Marx who you seem to know nothing about and Lenin (& Trotsky) who you link with Stalin, a serious mistake.
Do you have a reading problem? Or is it just too much bother to focus on what was actually written?
Marx was an economist who predicted the demise of capitalism in his magnum opus Das Kapital. He did not promote revolution, to him it would be unnecessary. Capitalism would collapse of its own corruption.
Lenin thought revolution was necessary in order to end capitalism in what ironically was a largely agrarian society. Initially after his revolution, which was brief, there was some promise of democracy. The counter revolutionaries intervened and a three year civil war ensued. The Americans aided and abetted the counter revolutionaries.
After the civil war politics turned totalitarian. Lenin had no use for Stalin. Stalin who made rare mention of Marx but most certainly was also a totalitarian.
As our allies in World War II we said very nice things about freedom loving Soviets. Stalin was not a good guy and it was overstated. What was not ever stated is that we could never have fought that war without them, they suffered 80% of the Allies casualties. The population in the Soviet Union did not exceed the 1940 number until 1955.
The Republicans took control of the congress in 1947, they enacted the National Security Act creating the NSA and the CIA. They thereafter invented the Cold War. The perfect foil for the development of the Military Industrial Complex.
The propaganda and red baiting that followed for forty years was all part and parcel of the program to create and maintain a boogeyman so the MIC could keep their ever increasing profiteering unchecked.
The Soviets went broke. Here is Michael Parenti to ask if there were so many political prisoners why didn't they come pouring out of the gulags when Boris Yeltsin took over. The answer is, there were not vast legions in the gulags, it was more propaganda.
The MIC need new boogeymen and invented them with the Islamists.
Very little of this has ever had anything to do with our security.
It is to keep the war bucks flowing.
The Soviets while they looked to Marx created a system of State Socialism. It is a counter part to the system of State Capitalism. In other words, Fascism, which is what we have.
Neither system promotes or perpetuates individual liberty.
Anarchic Libertarian Socialism does just that. A primary example is the short lived second Spanish Republic. Successful mixed economies have prevailed in Scandanavia and western Europe as a whole has advanced because of Socialist influence.
There were earlier examples of war mongering propaganda. But since 1947 it has been non stop, war mongers and more war mongers.
You should study world history from the viewpoint of the world and not just the Fascist Americans.
book by Zinn that I'm reading, and just go back to that pop-up book by Caroline Finkel (Osman's Dream). Maybe I should open up that old coloring book by Quinn, or find the fourth comic book in Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples.
And, of course, I'm unable to really read- critically- any of this children's prose. The proof is in the fact that I disagree with you.
Ironically, I don't disagree with your goals but with your method of achieving those goals. Like Marx, I believe there's an evolutionary process involved. I believe that process can be scooted along, gently. You vocally hop on to the revolution bandwagon. I'm willing to die before the train reaches Utopia, as long as the train is headed there. You seem to be willing to bash your head through 10-feet-thick reinforced concrete walls in order to reach Utopia in the next 5 minutes- and you seem to expect every sane (in your eyes) person to bash right along with you.
The Second Spanish Republic? Why in the hell would you use that as an example, Alice? It failed precisely because the Republic tore down too many revered institutions too quickly. The Spanish Left, though elected, lost support in critical segments of the population- like the royalists and Catholics in the Spanish Army.
.
Vocally hop on the revolution bandwagon…
WHERE?
And please do not give links to juvenile pop groups.
Read my initial comment again, I was responding to tweakerbelle who previously said this:
I was pointing out that there are others who are unwilling to be revolutionaries, not because they are petit bourgeois, or that they fail to push the agenda, but because it was Marx himself who predicted it will be unnecessary.
The quote says that the Marxist conclusion is for the necessity of violent revolution.
That was LENIN'S conclusion, not MARX.
That is why the phrase was Marxist/Leninist.
I push the agenda as strongly as I can, I use the best scientific understanding of history I am able and I come to Marx's conclusion, capitalism will collapse on its own.
Marx was an economist of towering intellect but there is no utopia. That statues of him still stand in Germany.
I take time and care to think my comments through. When you respond to a carefully thought out comment, at least do the courtesy of reading it throughly.
As for the Spanish left, they were invaded and defeated by the Nazis and the Fascists.
They were Hitler's first victims.
---
This thread started with the assertion by 'TheTruth' that Obama is a captive of the Fat Cats. I think I have that about right. I am not in total disagreement with that idea.
My point of departure was the difference between the 'Stimulus' and the 'Bailout'. 'TheTruth' did not find a difference, I did.
Tweakerbelle bridged the gap. I pointed out a previous reply to a previous post that I doubt tweakerbelle had seen.
That is where Andy K entered at a complete tangent.
the work to prepare for a civil war. They hadn't cleaned house in the military. They pissed off the wrong people at the wrong time.
If Clauswitz was right, and war is a tool in the political box, the Republicans were either shitty politicians or just plain stupid for not realizing that their political opponets were prepared. The Republicans might have taken their time tearing down the institutions brick by brick, so that by the time anyone noticed it those institutions might be gone. Instead they dynamited those institutions, causing major collateral political damage- to themselves.
And there's the lesson to be learned from the Second Spanish Republic (particularly in the new home of displaced religionists from all over the world): never underestimate the power of institutions- particularly the church- to cause people to irrationally act against they're own self-interests. Try to force a junkie to go cold turkey and you can end up in a whole new world of pain. But if you wean them off of the opiate...
And my apologies- I somehow terribly missed, "...but I can say here it will not have a rifle in it." The "not have" part I missed, anyway. I'm sorry.
---------------
(my reply-by-edit to your addendum-by-edit)
Tangent? Yeah, mebbe...A reaction to the injection of a certain style of presentation. Not that I disagree with what you're saying, Alice, because I agree that stimulus package /= bank bailout.
What sends my fist to my forehead is that I see "Lenin" and "Marx" and just know that when you drop those names in front of 90% of your fellow Americans they tune you out. And, for those of us who don't tune you out, there are some of us who don't think it very good to drop in the founder of a system of government that ended up killing it's own people to retain it's power. And the reaction by the US government can't justify the purges, the first war with Poland, the divvying-up of the same country two decades later, Katyn Forest...That's the imagery your arguments bring to my mind.
And now that I'm re-reading, I'm realizing that, yes, I see those names in the same argument, though you differentiated, I'm just reading them exactly the opposite way you intended. A dissonance trigger, I suppose.
are the results of propaganda.
We have had 60 years of red baiting and the attendant propaganda.
Whatever the Soviets did or didn't do I will never, ever look to the CIA for information.
They could not even predict or see the imminent collapse.
The irony is immense.
what you're advocating, except that you seem to be taking a hobbsonian position that all of our rulers are corrupt scum, are preying upon us, that life is short and brutal, and we had better dig the pus out of our peepers to see the bus that's about to hit us.
um, slappy? have you been reading revelations again? just asking.
you might try James Galbraith's 'The Predator State'.
Is Lindsey Graham happy? We all know if Lindsey isn't happy, the world isn't happy.
Okay, those who said Obama couldn't so his job, step up. So now what will the pissing and moaning be about?
Don't worry, they'll think of something. (Hell, I could think of something, but I'm willing to give the guy a bit of a grace period.)
Grace Period. Sounds like a good name for a stripper.......
What strip clubs are YOU going to?
LOL
I do know a woman named Misty Dawn. No, I didn't tell her name sounded like a stripper alias.
:)
Misty Dawn was the *ahem* stage name of John Holmes' second wife.
I don't know why I know that. ;D
:O
No kidding!?
I will HAVE to remember that.
The best stripper name I've heard was one on Hill Street Blues: Lotta Gue (pronounced "goo")
Just heard that milquetoast Harry effusively praise the three Republican senators who voted for the "stimulus" like they were the second coming of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.
Jesus Christ, Harry. You only need 51 votes to pass a bill. If the F-ing Republicans try to filibuster, make up stand up and talk for three days. Grow some testicles and kick some ass.
This sets the tone for the next four years. Like it or not...Arlen Specter and the "moderates" will control the agenda from now on.
How's that sound? F-ing Obama.
n/t
your wrong this time. give it a break. this is an accomplishment when you understand the consequences of prolonging/delaying. dems compromised we will expect that in return.
"We will expect that in return"
Are you kidding? LBJ, Tip O'Neil, even Dr. Billy Frist had and answer for that crap...
Compromise? We don't need it...Plus....Its not the time for that sh*t.
your tough.........i mean Bad.
Do you suffer from short-term memory loss, Johnny?
A cloture vote- the Senate Republicans' preferred method of filibustering for the last two years- requires 60 votes. When the GOP wants to kill a bill they call for a cloture vote, which, if passed with those 60 votes, sends the bill to the floor, where a simple majority of the Senate can then pass the bill.
Short of those 60 votes for cloture, the bill is sent back to debate, effectively killing the legislation.
He can be a milquetoast. But not in this case.
It's just that milquetoast was good enough for a change.
heirs as Senate majority leader- Debbie Stabenow. She ain't my favorite Senator, either, and I'm not talking about the Michigan Congressional caucus, solely.
But she might be effective. The majority leader is a deal maker, and partisan firebrands have a hard time making deals inside their own party, let alone making deals across the aisle.
No memory Loss here.
You're getting it now. Let them kill the legislation. Duh.
Then hout it from the highest hill: "The Republicans killed the Legislation that would have provided you with a job".
Get it? Harry Reid doesn't.
Harry Reid is the first Majority Leader in history to say we need sixty Senators to bring anything to a vote – as the mere threat of a filibuster can stall legislation.
If you’re in the minority – and you can block legislation without having to actually go through the risky prospect of a full-scale filibuster – wouldn’t you do it all the time?
Reid (not the Republicans) decided that Democrats must have sixty votes in the Senate to get anything done, which could prove disastrous now that the public is counting on Democrats to implement change.
I don't believe Reid will change. The only solution is to find a new majority leader.
Reid really must go.
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Why_Harry...
And how do you propose to defeat filibustering-by-cloture-vote?
That second question is rhetorical, because the burden isn't on the Majority Leader, but on the members of the minority. If the minority toes the line and votes in a 41 Senator bloc, legislation dies. In the case of the stimulus package, deals were made with a few members of the minority, thus innoculating the legislation from a cloture vote.
Feingold, Boxer, Leahy, Schumer - there are plenty of Democratic senators who can replace Reid.
Defeating the filibuster is easy: make them do it.
Two things will happen:
1 - the Republicans will look stupid on CSPAN new clips rambling on and on for hours and days, obstructing legislation and
2 - many will cave. These are mostly old men and some women and talking for hours on end is not healthy.
The Republicans need need to be called out. Reid will never do it. He is almost 70. We need a younger and more vibrant Senate majority leader who can get things done.
We need a bit of this badass sh*t. Here's a description of LBJ's leadeship style. It was called "The "Johnson Treatment"":
"Its tone could be supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance, scorn, tears, complaint, the hint of threat. It was all of these together. It ran the gamut of human emotions. Its velocity was breathtaking, and it was all in one direction. Interjections from the target were rare. Johnson anticipated them before they could be spoken. He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his target, his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos, statistics. Mimicry, humor, and genius of analogy made The Treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the target stunned and helpless."
I like it...
his fellow Democrats.
Something wrong with that. Fear and respect. What a concept.
someone from the other party, unless he had the key to the closet with all of the skeletons.
Outside of that, what could Johnson-as Majority Leader- do to Republicans? Couldn't really withhold campaign funding or strip them of their committee seats. And that's what we're talking about here: the Majority Leader attempting to win votes from the minority.
The problem with using fear as a weapon is that it can come back on you like a boomerang, and exacerbate the problems you face. But when you make a deal to get someone to cross the aisle, they're the ones who have to deal with the problems which are sure to arise from their own party.
If you think that Reid is the loser today, you're gravely mistaken. The loser will come from the GOP side of the aisle. Whether it's Specter, Collins, et al, or Mitch McConnell, time will tell.
Seems like what the Republican Senators do. Interesting....
Did Reid hold a gun to the head of the majority of the caucus? Is the office his Divine Right? Call your Senators- if they're Democrats- and ask them if they voted Reid into this position. Whether they did or didn't, I'm sure they have their reasons, some possibly even altruistic.
The selection process, while not codified as such, is a perfect little microcosm of our republican government. We vet our candidates by their positions on issues and elect the ones we feel best speak for us as our representatives. If you find that your Congressperson doesn't represent the constituency, vote him or her out. Run for the office yourself, and make it a point to feature your favorites for your caucus' leadership positions (and watch the electorate flee from you for going way too "inside baseball"...there's a reason that sports highlights shows feature all of the home runs on the day, but rarely a sacrifice fly that got a potential run to third...if you follow). Maybe you get elected, but you should prepare for a vocal minority to question your vote for your caucus' Whip, because there will be questions....
And the fact that Republicans did filibuster effectively by using the cloture vote during the last Congress, even though the polling data showed it would cost them dearly, speaks to their insanity. That they continue to threaten even though they're polling at a 37% (and falling) approval rating is just further proof of their mental states. While there's a chance that that mentally ill guy waving around a gun at the intersection of Oak and Main won't shoot anyone, there's just as good a chance that he will. It's wiser to approach the guy with more than one person- the more people the better.
I just heard there might be a snag. Seems Pelosi isn't happy about something to do with education that was weakened. Reid is said to be talking to her about it right now.
I can't wait until they have breaking news about a bill concerning wind power passing.
It'll be headlined, "Breaking Wind."
Does this mean we can't eat the rich?
You don't want to. They are tough, bitter and boney.
I read that as tough, bitter and horney.
Horney republicans.
[shudder]
Egad, my beautiful mind....
;)
economist's views on this thing for days. They seem fairly evenly split on their opinions, but in one place they all agree is that the US government is making a big mistake here. They are trying to be the consumer, because the consumer is broken. It can't work. They have no income without taking it from someone else, either now or later. If there is a God, God help us all.
By the way, just to cheer ya'all up. Noam Chomsky says you haven't seen anything yet. Wait till the healthcare fiasco collapses. It's coming. Where do you think they are going to get the money to pay for all this stimulus? It's obvious they sure as hell aren't going to cut military funding. What's next? Pensions and health coupled with enormous tax increases down the road.
But I am fighting depression (no pun intended).
The writing on the wall says, no one in government knows how to fix the economy, but this sure as hell is a good opportunity to transfer wealth that doesn't exist to the haves.
The writing on the wall also says, if you can read this, you're screwed.
says (Peter Schiff? Can't remember) that the idea of a stimulus would be great IF it was a manufacturing economy, which it isn't. What this amounts to, is tossing money out the window.
i think there's something to that. i believe the infrastructure building will help. the stimulus may prevent the economy from getting worse but maybe not.
Exactly. Infastructure. Spending on building things, upgrading, etc. What is there in this bill that does that? Very little. Most is fluff, and tax cuts and much of this bill won't be implimented until 2010, so why this huge rush?
Besides, once an economy is kick started (like this is supposed to do according to politicians), it needs another sector to continue the path. In the depression, that was manufacturing. Now? There isn't much manufacturing. Service sector jobs will never recover an economy back to monetary greatness.
Did they keep Coburn's wasteful $2 billion earmark for dirty coal technology?
I never noticed before, but when I click on the little orange box that rises from the bottom right of the browser to "load new comments", the new comments are then highlighted with red boxes! That is pretty cool! I am now fully on board with the new (for months now) look of C&L!
(I am sure the staff was losing sleep over my pending approval)
Oh gosh...breaking news..Reid is on the radio praising all for such a wunnyful job on the new bill. Let's listen....
whoops...this must be what Johnny2Bad was talking about upthread. Must be a time zone thing.
Much of the aid to states and education, etc. has been taken out and replaced with pointless tax cuts. I now believe we'd be better off if this deal failed and we started over from scratch. I've written to my two Senators (both Democrats) to ask them to vote against it.
Did anyone see Lindsey Graham today telling Tim Geithner that he didn't have a clue?
Graham and McCain are the scum of scum. Before the election, they were talking about they being the ones who could work across the aisle - the ones to bring real change to Washington.
And now, you see them being obstructionist, beligerant, rude, arogant.
Imagine if these guys had gotten into the White House?
Would we be talking about righting the economy? Hell no. We'd be talking about going to war with Iran.
got the job done. He knows the legislative rules precisely and how to use them. To waste time, especially right now, pushing this to a filibuster would have been counterproductive on numerous levels. And-- Harry Reid got re-elected to the Senate majority leadership unanimously a few months ago. The Senate Democrats are behind him 'cause he's a great leader, and a man who really strives to do what is best for his country. He's a very smart and courageous man (he stood up to the mob and bombs in his car in Las Vegas) and is very skilled at working with the various members of Congress.
Tax cuts then again thing else only 150 billion on infra spending , School Construction cut, State budget support Cut.
Obama should veto the bill but he's to blind to see he has a Pile of bullshit of a bill on his desk.
Just because the bill has some good stuff don't mean we should ignore the large amount of bad Tax cuts.
Tax cuts don't work. The net increase per paycheck just amounts to a few extra dollars. But it does make for a great campaign slogan, doesn't it. This last two weeks has taught me something about the Republican Party. It is an organization that seeks political power by appealing to individual greed, while choosing to ignore our responsibilities to one another. The GOP mantra is "cut taxes then let the marketplace work things out on its own." In other words, their campaign slogan in 2012 will be "We wanted to cut your taxes, but Obama insisted on spending your money." It is disappointing that so many people seem to think this philosophy is what gave America the highest standard of living in the world for so many years. More people lived better in the United States than in other countries because those who were making the most money paid more taxes. Areas that couldn't have otherwise afforded roads and bridges and communication systems got them because we pooled our wealth and government programs were created. From National Parks and neighborhood playgrounds to interstate highways and bridges, the government played a major role in improving our quality of life. But, now, there is a pernicious ideology afoot that believes government is evil and that "real Americans" should just look out for #1. These people want an small, impotent federal government that does nothing for the nation as a whole. They want the rich to get richer, meaning them, and the poor to just go live somewhere else. They don't care about health care, because they know they'll always be able to afford it. They don't care about the educational system, because their kids are in expensive private schools. They don't care if the middle class vanishes, because they have nothing but disdain for it anyway. This obsession with cutting taxes and not doing anything to stop our economic free-fall seems almost suicidal. Keep it up GOP. It'll just be your funeral in 2012.
Login or Register to post comments.