"The theoretical one is that we man up to our issues - put people [TW: those who have enabled the credit crisis] in jail, work-out the debt, stop the current BS programs [TW: some of the stimulus stuff like the housing credits] and the past stupid subsidies like the mortgage tax credit, hike the crap out of taxes, cut benefits, increase the retirement age, break-up the banks, get tough/fair on trade, transition to ANY of the 36 healthcare systems on the planet with better results ANY one of which is significantly cheaper than the one we have now, tax the shit out of carbon, start investing several trillion in infrastructure, slash the military budget, stop the "war" on drugs, eradicate Monsanto [TW: this person is not a fan of our food system], etc. The truth is you are shaking your fist at the sky. No matter how much we don't like it, the way humans solve problems is highly inefficient which is they don't solve problems until they are obviously on fire and there is no easier choice..."
TW: I agree with most of the prescriptions even if I agree essentially none of them will be enacted. The only value in pondering them is to ask why each of us individually would necessarily oppose a particular solution. And if by chance one does not oppose them all, which party is more likely to address them. Obviously neither party is able or willing to address them all. A common thread with the above suggestions are that they would:
1) require some level of sacrifice
2) require entrenched interests to relent relative to their particular interests
3) require a focus on the long-term rather than the short-term
This week's new meme is drop everything and focus on jobs. No health care reform, no financial reform etc. Eight months ago it was all the "stimulus" had to take effect immediately. We have been on this merry-go round forever, perhaps it will keep twirling a long. But something seems amiss.
No comments:
Post a Comment