Here it is: the culmination of the administration's economic policies. Heck, even this heavily biased NYTimes op-ed ends with:
“There is no way we can pay for health care and the rest of the Obama agenda, plus get our long-term deficits under control, simply by raising taxes on the wealthy,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, a former Clinton administration budget official. “The middle class is going to have to contribute as well.”
If that wasn't enough, this article appeared on the healthcare reform initiative going through Congress. Nothing like burning the candle at both ends... and when that fails to illuminate the situation, you can always curse about how we got here. Even if it seems pathetic and unhelpful, at least you feel better. And isn't that what's important?
Perhaps that is overly sarcastic.
I do find it important to consider all of these issues, and I am most likely preaching to the choir, if I know anything about my readership. I just always find it unfortunate that there exists a serious disconnect between how people expect themselves to react and how others react. For examples, see socialism and game theory. Of course, ignoring how people feel can end badly, too.
And I'm obviously not that pessimistic, as I bought some stocks tonight. But maybe I'm just making some poor assumptions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The conceit of the self-styled elite, albeit conceived with sincerity and the best of intentions for the most part, is that they can better invest resources than can other individuals; that, by virtue of their ability to see the Truth and to judge What is Good for All, they should be entrusted with great power, legal and economic; that, if only the confused masses would follow their lead, the world could be made better. They believe that they better understand the world, yet then express frustration when others behave in unexpected ways. They simultaneously distrust "evil corporations" and are surprized that such corporations are not more "altruistic". They see corporate leaders as corrupt; yet they see elected officials as trustworthy (except those of the opposition party), failing to recognize that they are all just humans--equally susceptible to error and vice. They claim to deeply believe that taxes should be higher and state they are willing to pay such higher taxes to achieve their lofty societal goals...yet, they never write a check to the government for the higher amount, until they can be sure that others will be foreced to share their "generosity". They pretend to favor non-violence and don't think individuals need to have guns...yet, they are perfectly willing to enforce their personal convictions upon others via laws...with the inherent promise that men with badges and guns will coerce those who don't "voluntarily" acquiesce to "donate to their favorite charity".
True charity is uplifting for both the donor and the recipient. It is also usually much more effective, dollar for dollar. Contrast that with taxation and entitlements, which create resentment on one hand and depndency on the other. To be fair, there is not an absolute, complete contrast, for some of us do take pride in paying taxes to support the noble functions of our government; and, some recipients of governmental largess are suitably grateful for (and deserving of) support in times of need. But when one takes into account the loss of efficiency, the erosion of human dignity and the destruction of the incentive to work (for both the tax-payer and the welfare recipient), it is puzzling to think that the dangers of a society based upon weath redistribution by government fiat are inapparent to folks who think they are smart enough to tell the rest of us how to act and where we must direct our money.
Post a Comment