Kelly, good point. Fire Dog Lake made a similar one about the protesters. However, I wonder what change that woman really desires from the government. Permanent lifetime support would actually harm her, IMHO, and we certainly have a reasonable social safety net in this country. If she is asking that government stop favoring big business, then I can certainly agree.
I'm hoping that the key to what she wants is the last of your points, "that government stop favoring big business."
A lot of people are in financial trouble because the economy. Not because of something they did, but because of something being inflicted on them. And what do they see, banks getting bailouts, banks acting ruthlessly, and banks making record profits. These same banks are squeezing everything they can out of the middle class with no concern about what its doing to the country as a whole. Some of this may be illegal. All of it is clearly a violation of decency. It doesn't seem fair. People want to feel that there is some fairness to the system.
How one would go about doing this, or even if it can be done, I haven't a clue. But a good start is making sure the country is never in the same position where we're forced to decide if some corporation is too big to fail. We haven't done that and there is no indication that will happen anytime soon. Instead the argument is that we need less regulation of the banking system.
You mention going back to the gold standard. I have no idea if that is practical, but I think the discussion needs to start happening. Because the last thing we need is to keep business as usual.
I think the way things were won't ever be that way again. 99% of the world's wealth is held by 1% of the population and they want to hang onto it.
The lady will have to return to being like a hermit and do everything for herself as nobody will sell anything to her -- she doesn't have the money. And they do have the money but won't spend it. This is where we are now.
3 comments:
Kelly, good point. Fire Dog Lake made a similar one about the protesters. However, I wonder what change that woman really desires from the government. Permanent lifetime support would actually harm her, IMHO, and we certainly have a reasonable social safety net in this country.
If she is asking that government stop favoring big business, then I can certainly agree.
I'm hoping that the key to what she wants is the last of your points, "that government stop favoring big business."
A lot of people are in financial trouble because the economy. Not because of something they did, but because of something being inflicted on them. And what do they see, banks getting bailouts, banks acting ruthlessly, and banks making record profits. These same banks are squeezing everything they can out of the middle class with no concern about what its doing to the country as a whole. Some of this may be illegal. All of it is clearly a violation of decency. It doesn't seem fair. People want to feel that there is some fairness to the system.
How one would go about doing this, or even if it can be done, I haven't a clue. But a good start is making sure the country is never in the same position where we're forced to decide if some corporation is too big to fail. We haven't done that and there is no indication that will happen anytime soon. Instead the argument is that we need less regulation of the banking system.
You mention going back to the gold standard. I have no idea if that is practical, but I think the discussion needs to start happening. Because the last thing we need is to keep business as usual.
Like that sign.
I think the way things were won't ever be that way again. 99% of the world's wealth is held by 1% of the population and they want to hang onto it.
The lady will have to return to being like a hermit and do everything for herself as nobody will sell anything to her -- she doesn't have the money. And they do have the money but won't spend it. This is where we are now.
I HOPE I AM WRONG.
Post a Comment