Atticus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 12:07 AM
Original message |
Haven't we just allowed ourselves to get "framed" out of the game? |
|
Throw out the rules. They have been constructed by people who favor only the preservation of the current power structure.
If you are spending more than you are taking in, there are---contrary to how the nation is now behaving---three different approaches to balancing your budget.
You could cut your expenditures and simply make do with what you now earn.
You could increase your income and maintain your expenditures.
You could do some of both: trim some expenses and find a way to increse you income just enough to pay for the remaining expenses.
No one in their right mind would suggest that you reduce your income and then compensate for the shortfall by drastically slashing your spending. But, isn't this what we as a nation have just done?
Why should we accept the tax cuts for the wealthy as a given? Why increase the burden for 98% of us so that the top 2% can pocket a few hundred thousand a year more?
This is wrong. To accept it meekly and without protest is immoral.
And, though I do know how this will be received by many, until we are ready to shut down the government with a general strike---block highways, obstruct building entrances and fill the streets around centers of government and the corporate headquarters where our laws are being written, we are likely wasting our time with the pretense of democracy as we now practice it.
As Father Berrigan said, "If voting could change things, it would be illegal."
If our course is not corrected, the next few years will feature automobiles we cannot afford to operate, food that is ever more scarce and expensive and government encouragement of madmen willing to select "others" to blame for our decline. All that is necessary for this future to be made manifest is for us to continue to stay in line, wait our turn and do as we're told by the soulless businessmen who claim to have a bill of sale for our nation.
We'd better find a way to take care of ourselves because I don't think Exxon-Mobil or General Electric is at all interested in the job.
|
msongs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 12:10 AM
Response to Original message |
1. to refuse to veto tax cuts for wealthy & then claim they are bad is a tad hypocritical IMO nt |
snappyturtle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 12:27 AM
Response to Original message |
|
"No one in their right mind would suggest that you reduce your income and then compensate for the shortfall by drastically slashing your spending. But, isn't this what we as a nation have just done?
Yep...I would say we have. Unfortunately, many families have HAD to do this. But, it's different with the government.....which has with Congressional approval reduce the nation's income by continuing with the ridiculous tax cuts to the rich.
|
abq e streeter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 12:34 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I regret to inform both you and myself, that I agree completely |
|
And I do regret it; I hope that you're wrong that it would require mass civil disobedience to stop these greedy mofos, but....I don't think you are. (and I also have very serious doubts enough people will snap out of their state of hypnosis to do anything )
|
Mr Generic Other
(362 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 01:43 AM
Response to Original message |
4. we should at least insist |
|
that until the tax cuts for the rich expire that none of the rest of us should have to tighten our belts either. no, zero, programs what-so-ever (especially social security or medicare) should suffer one cent of reduction in funding. when the legislature wants to get serious about cutting spending they can start with those who have some money to spare. the rich need to be taxed, the defense budget cut, and crooked bankers and politicians need to go to jail.
|
Lorien
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
Lorien
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 02:14 AM
Response to Original message |
5. There's no law that says that we each individually couldn't take a very leisurely |
|
drive around Capital Hill-and every major corporation's headquarters-at 5am on the exact same day. Several million of us, just taking in the sights, all at the same places and time, for seven or eight or ten hours.....
|
hfojvt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 03:46 AM
Response to Original message |
7. I tried to protest before the compromise was made |
|
was sort of met with a collective yawn. Maybe people will wake up when cuts are made to social security or the Government is shut down.
|
Hannah Bell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 03:48 AM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 03:05 PM
Response to Original message |