Paul Krugman, on the other hand, is not
Ari Fleischer is certainly skilled in the art of being smarmy and avoiding questions (although I think my hatred for McClellan runs deeper). In short, a douchebag.
Paul Krugman, no trace of douchebaggery about him, is skilled in the art of explaining in clear, even terms, why nearly every economic decision the Bush administration has made has been ... you know ... douchey. And like evil and stuff. He sees the deeper plan they had all along, to cut taxes so that the country would run up a huge debt, then say the only way to get out of the red is to slash every good social program we have out of existence. They're basically hunting the ghost of FDR and, to a lesser extent at this point, LBJ. Jerks. As momzulita pointed out yesterday, 'we had an ownership society: in 1928.'
The way I see it is that if the Repubs have their way, sooner or later (sooner) the whole system will go bust and there will be millions of working Americans who suddenly realize that Bush never gave a shit about them. Which will bring on a resurgence of left-wing politics (potentially even actual LEFT-wing politics like socialism (but uh oh, that could lead to 'rations')) and, likely, 21st century versions of the New Deal and the Great Society. I tend to be of the cyclical school of history, mostly because we seem to be unable to learn from out own mistakes. Before I get more history-snob than I just did, I want to pose this question: is there some way to bring into the SS dialogue (which is going to involve a lot of hootin and hollerin in the next two months on the part of the Bushies) the history of the social insurance programs (beyond the cursory 'FDR created it' stuff), going back to the ownership society, then the Depression, then these programs' creation, then the right-wing's decades-long disdain for them, followed by their attempts today to dismantle them? I think that's something anyone can understand, but history is usually more confined to academic settings, rather than used as a tool to help the public make informed decisions. Because if everyone really knew about history rather than just the US-centric version of it, we'd all be in a socialist republic. There I go again, but that's really how I feel!
Another thing: Bill Frist is a flip-flopper, only it's scarier because instead of changing his mind on the basis of new and pertinent information (something only spineless Dems do), he changed his because his party pressured him to do so. Screw him anyhow, and his 'maybe you can get AIDS through tears and sweat, I'm not sure' bullshit. Also I asked momzulita how on earth he's a doctor and she said his family owns one of the worst hospital systems in the country. Maybe they found a way around that whole 'oath' thing for him.
And: Which part of our liberal media deemed that Martha Stewart's release from "jail" should suddenly be the most important thing on every news station, and, based on chiniqua's testimony, require round-the-clock live coverage? I'm not sure, but I'd guess her major fan base (aside from gay men) is mostly women in the 'moral values' crowd, so soon to come will be the backlash against her for being immoral and lying and making shady stock deals. Right? Right?? After careful consideration, I've decided not to hold my breath.
Paul Krugman, no trace of douchebaggery about him, is skilled in the art of explaining in clear, even terms, why nearly every economic decision the Bush administration has made has been ... you know ... douchey. And like evil and stuff. He sees the deeper plan they had all along, to cut taxes so that the country would run up a huge debt, then say the only way to get out of the red is to slash every good social program we have out of existence. They're basically hunting the ghost of FDR and, to a lesser extent at this point, LBJ. Jerks. As momzulita pointed out yesterday, 'we had an ownership society: in 1928.'
The way I see it is that if the Repubs have their way, sooner or later (sooner) the whole system will go bust and there will be millions of working Americans who suddenly realize that Bush never gave a shit about them. Which will bring on a resurgence of left-wing politics (potentially even actual LEFT-wing politics like socialism (but uh oh, that could lead to 'rations')) and, likely, 21st century versions of the New Deal and the Great Society. I tend to be of the cyclical school of history, mostly because we seem to be unable to learn from out own mistakes. Before I get more history-snob than I just did, I want to pose this question: is there some way to bring into the SS dialogue (which is going to involve a lot of hootin and hollerin in the next two months on the part of the Bushies) the history of the social insurance programs (beyond the cursory 'FDR created it' stuff), going back to the ownership society, then the Depression, then these programs' creation, then the right-wing's decades-long disdain for them, followed by their attempts today to dismantle them? I think that's something anyone can understand, but history is usually more confined to academic settings, rather than used as a tool to help the public make informed decisions. Because if everyone really knew about history rather than just the US-centric version of it, we'd all be in a socialist republic. There I go again, but that's really how I feel!
Another thing: Bill Frist is a flip-flopper, only it's scarier because instead of changing his mind on the basis of new and pertinent information (something only spineless Dems do), he changed his because his party pressured him to do so. Screw him anyhow, and his 'maybe you can get AIDS through tears and sweat, I'm not sure' bullshit. Also I asked momzulita how on earth he's a doctor and she said his family owns one of the worst hospital systems in the country. Maybe they found a way around that whole 'oath' thing for him.
And: Which part of our liberal media deemed that Martha Stewart's release from "jail" should suddenly be the most important thing on every news station, and, based on chiniqua's testimony, require round-the-clock live coverage? I'm not sure, but I'd guess her major fan base (aside from gay men) is mostly women in the 'moral values' crowd, so soon to come will be the backlash against her for being immoral and lying and making shady stock deals. Right? Right?? After careful consideration, I've decided not to hold my breath.
posted by azulita at 12:04 PM
<< Home