Some bold and troubling thoughts in that post. I'll add my 2 cents:
Re: "corrupt favored son"
A.>>> Born to the spoon, as the saying goes.
Re. the original quote: "IMO we have crass ineptitude being shown in Washington - in foreign and fiscal policy... and your response: "Here I disagree with you. It certainly is crass, calculated, conniving and craven. But it is not inept. The fiscal policy is a reversion to the financial enslavement of the middle and lower classes that was a hallmark of the Reagan/Bush era."
A.>>> I do find it difficult to believe that anyone seriously expects to both lower debt and raise productivity and national income with the current set of policy prescriptions.... Of course, by comparison to some of the Loony Tunes stuff that's come out of the House of Representatives (like their 2001 tax plan) the President's programs have seemed vaguely more reasonable (especially if you include, granting the benefit of the doubt, some of the nebulously-discussed plans for total tax code over-haul that have been advanced for 'next year' by O'Neil and some of the other 'loose cannon' members of the Bush II admin.)
Re: "The rapid rise of the national debt isn't the result of ineptitude. It is the result of a cynical plan to transfer the wealth of the taxpayer to the banking elite."
A.>>> Well, if the 'goal' is to increase income disparities, widen the gap between the wealthiest 2% and the rest of us for example... then merely a continuation of current trends might suffice because we are already back to the previous highs of income disparity that we achieved as a society in the 1920s. (See "American Plutocracy" by the former Nixon admin. staffer for the analysis.)
A.>>> If new policy pushes us beyond the 1920s income disparity record, then we will be sailing into uncharted waters. (Or perhaps records set by much earlier civilizations....)
Re: "As to foreign policy, we are engaged in, primarily, a thrust into Central Asia, which serves two global strategic purposes. The first, of course, is the oil prize, but the other, and less well understood is the pincer movement that our U.S. imperialists are starting to effectuate against the Red Army. We have them covered fairly well on most sides with our fortresses in South Korea, Japan, Diego Garcia and the Pacific Fleet. Central Asia was an attractive arena for expansion of Chinese hegemony and resource exploitation, and we are well on the way to checkmating that possibility. The other resource prize that is still up for grabs is eastern Siberia. It will be very interesting to see developments there over the next decade."
A.>>> Here, I fail to see the persuasiveness of the analysis, or, if it *is* being implemented as our national policy to revert to a mercantilist approach in handling Asia, then it's a very stupid policy unlikely to achieve the desired results.
A.>>> A policy of aiding Russia (and China, as appropriate) to become more like us as Republics in governance and Capitalists in Economics, is more likely to produce favorable results for us (and them) *more efficiently* than a policy of 'containment'.
'Re: "Civil liberties, fiscal prudence, etc., have been thrown out the window in the name of what? A bogus war without end."'
A.>>> That's the trouble with 'slippery slopes'... it's hard to climb back up them. |
