Brad,
Paying down the Debt - which is what they should do - isn't a great
political ploy for the folks in Peoria. "Saving Social Security and
Medicare" is good news to the electorate. So, I don't expect them to do
what in this time of a relatively good economy can actually be done.
On the other hand, a Pace University research team called a press
conference, because they had run across something they didn't expect. They
had found that 79% of the Budget is composed of transfer payments.
The country runs on 21% of the amount collected.
The 79%? That's how incumbents stay in office.
Harry
_________________________________________________-
Brad wrote:
Harry Pollard wrote:
>
> Victor wrote:
>
> >I am by no means a communist or socialist, but this looks like
> >propaganda-sriven tunnel vision to me. Comments follow.
>
> I rarely find a genuine communist or socialist. Lots of waffling liberals,
> but hardly any genuinely philosophic communists, or socialists. It's a
shame.
[snip]
I've met a few.
But I want to digress here to report something I heard on
the NPR Morning Edition this morning (26 Jan 00), which I
found almost Orwellian: The Republicans are claiming that
Clinton is putting too great a burden on the present
generation by using the budget surplus to quickly pay off
the American national debt. The Republicans are saying that
this is harmful to the working people and that they can't
understand how Clinton will be able to increase
benefits to the elderly and infirm while paying down
the debt.
What could be more harmful to the working people than all the
*transfer payments* in the form of interest on the national
debt, paid to the rich? (Aside: Transfer payments to poor
people are called "welfare", etc.) If we don't pay down
the debt, the logical conclusion ill be that
eventually we won't have any money for anything
*except* interest payments on the national debt. Conversely,
without the debt, all the money that goes to transfer
payments to the rich (interest on the national
debt) could go to transfer payments to the needy (Social
Security, Medicaid, etc.),
without taking anything extra away from any working person
(sure, the rich would have to find other investments, but
that provides income to the investment banker class).
Have I stated this clearly enough for everyone to get
what the report said?
I can only assume that the Republicans must have deceived
themselves into believing the nonsense they speak,
for otherwise they'd have to be real sociopaths,
and I once read that one should never attribute to
conspiracy what can be explained by simple stupidity.
