| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"ta" |
| Date: |
22 Jan 2008 03:22:42 PM |
| Object: |
Committee on Financial Literacy |
It's funny to watch Bush talk on the tube (with all the suits in the
background) about a new committee to promote financial literacy.
According to Bush, this is necessary so that your average Joe, like
the ones caught up in the sub-prime mortgage mess, can make more
intelligent decisions about financial matters.
Of course, I'm all for financial literacy. Who isn't?
People need to take responsibility for their own financial decisions.
However, noticably absent is any kind of admonition or action against
the greedy bastids that caused the whole mess in the first place.
The implication, of course, is that your average Joe is responsible
for not getting fleeced, but these big institutions that pump money
out of them are not responsible for their own greedy actions.
Blame the victim, not the perpetrator.
Nice speech, George. Are we going to let all the rapists out of
prison, while we're at it?
Of course, if we're really interested in financial literacy, we would
make it a required part of every elementary and high school education
program.
But we're not. We're interested in speeches by politicians who never
*do* anything but make speeches.
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Committee on Financial Literacy |
22 Jan 2008 04:12:32 PM |
|
|
On Jan 22, 1:22=A0pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
It's funny to watch Bush talk on the tube (with all the suits in the
background) about a new committee to promote financial literacy.
According to Bush, this is necessary so that your average Joe, like
the ones caught up in the sub-prime mortgage mess, can make more
intelligent decisions about financial matters.
Republican Economics
This is probably one of the best breakdowns of what's wrong with
Bushonomics. Much like his idol, Ronald Reagan, the gameplan is
simple: Promise everyone with a nice tax break, make it something
visible and unmistakable (1981 tax bill, $300 check, etc...) and then
skew the rest so that middle class families get screwed and the rich
get richer.
http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/002080.html
Republicans have implemented supply-side economics for 17 of the last
25 years. During the times when they have implemented their policies,
Republicans have sunk this country into a mammoth amount of debt.
Their arguments used to justify this debt fail when compared to
facts. In addition, their claims that supply-side cuts increased tax
revenue and GDP fail when compared to the facts. In short, all their
arguments fail.
=2E..problem with Supply-side economics. It assumes the government
will make a proportionate cut in spending -- for every tax-dollar
lost, the government will cut spending. Good luck with this one.
Politicians - regardless of their party affiliation - will never
proportionately cut spending...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/24/92546/0175
Back in the 1980s Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan repeatedly
complained that Ronald Reagan was running up the national debt in
order to bankrupt the USA so that the Federal government could no
longer afford any of its social programs, from Aid to Families with
Dependent Children to Social Security to Medicare to veterans'
benefits. He was right, but hardly anyone listened.
The Republicans are still trying to bankrupt the Federal government
and they're still trying to eliminate every Federal social program,
not only the remnants of FDR's New Deal but even going back to Teddy
Roosevelt's conservationist programs.
Now, after 18 years of huge Republican deficits and Republican
recessions, the National Debt has increased from $937 Billion -- LESS
than $1 Trillion -- when Ronald Reagan took office to OVER $8.5
TRILLION !!! We will be paying off the debt added by Ronald Reagan,
George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush for the next 100 years and more!
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04C9DF4F-133E-47C2-8B5E-30CE446F14E5/
My Comments: Now what is needed is an analysis of the new republican
big government policy that combines deficit spending with the
transformation of expenditures to preferred interests into "highly
necessary emergencies" thus allowing the deficit to dry up unliked
expenditures and then give expenditures to those liked out of
percieved necessity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Committee on Financial Literacy |
22 Jan 2008 05:26:34 PM |
|
|
On Jan 22, 5:12 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:22 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
It's funny to watch Bush talk on the tube (with all the suits in the
background) about a new committee to promote financial literacy.
According to Bush, this is necessary so that your average Joe, like
the ones caught up in the sub-prime mortgage mess, can make more
intelligent decisions about financial matters.
Republican Economics
This is probably one of the best breakdowns of what's wrong with
Bushonomics. Much like his idol, Ronald Reagan, the gameplan is
simple: Promise everyone with a nice tax break, make it something
visible and unmistakable (1981 tax bill, $300 check, etc...) and then
skew the rest so that middle class families get screwed and the rich
get richer.
http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/002080.html
Republicans have implemented supply-side economics for 17 of the last
25 years. During the times when they have implemented their policies,
Republicans have sunk this country into a mammoth amount of debt.
Their arguments used to justify this debt fail when compared to
facts. In addition, their claims that supply-side cuts increased tax
revenue and GDP fail when compared to the facts. In short, all their
arguments fail.
...problem with Supply-side economics. It assumes the government
will make a proportionate cut in spending -- for every tax-dollar
lost, the government will cut spending. Good luck with this one.
Politicians - regardless of their party affiliation - will never
proportionately cut spending...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/24/92546/0175
Back in the 1980s Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan repeatedly
complained that Ronald Reagan was running up the national debt in
order to bankrupt the USA so that the Federal government could no
longer afford any of its social programs, from Aid to Families with
Dependent Children to Social Security to Medicare to veterans'
benefits. He was right, but hardly anyone listened.
The Republicans are still trying to bankrupt the Federal government
and they're still trying to eliminate every Federal social program,
not only the remnants of FDR's New Deal but even going back to Teddy
Roosevelt's conservationist programs.
Now, after 18 years of huge Republican deficits and Republican
recessions, the National Debt has increased from $937 Billion -- LESS
than $1 Trillion -- when Ronald Reagan took office to OVER $8.5
TRILLION !!! We will be paying off the debt added by Ronald Reagan,
George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush for the next 100 years and more!
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04C9DF4F-133E-47C2-8B5E-30CE446F14E5/
My Comments: Now what is needed is an analysis of the new republican
big government policy that combines deficit spending with the
transformation of expenditures to preferred interests into "highly
necessary emergencies" thus allowing the deficit to dry up unliked
expenditures and then give expenditures to those liked out of
percieved necessity?
From your statements you appear to paint a picture of debt that
started with Reagan and continued to grow till it got to its current
size in the present administrator. However, we both know that is not
true. The debt from the 80's that our grandchildren would be paying
back vanished in the 90's. And the current debt can also be handled.
The problem is that Bush has not embraced true supply side economics.
For political expediency he has agreed to large new entitlement
programs and he pulled back on issues such a reforming social
security. The problem is spending. The best way to reduce debt is to
spur economic development and to reduce government spending.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
