Right now, the economy is weak. Giving into austerity will weaken it further, or at least delay recovery for longer. And if Obama does not get a recovery, then he will not be a successful president, no matter how hard he works to claim Boehner’s successes as his own. Clinton’s speeches were persuasive because the labor market did a lot of his talking for him. But when unemployment is stuck at eight percent, there’s no such thing as a great communicator.
Really makes no difference where that quote came from (can't be bothered to link it), but the first thing I'd point out is that I've seen similar grammatical errors quite often lately. I'm not a grammar nazi, but I keep seeing this type of thing and it's starting to make me crazy.
Giving into austerity will weaken it
Who can point out the error for me? Keep in mind, this comes from a "professional writer".
In any case.. as I predicted (and it didn't take a psychic), the government didn't shut down, and they cut a fuck-ton of money from the federal budget. That's not a good thing. Bringing down unemployment is the best way to raise revenue, and you'd think that would be obvious. The unemployed don't pay taxes.
If everyone stops spending money, then unemployment remains high and the economy continues to suck. If the average Joe isn't spending, then the fed has to.. and quite often, government programs exist for a very good reason.
But then - as I say over and over, like a scratched vinyl record that skips, the whole point of this absurd political kabuki dance is to perpetuate the sucky economy and further depress the wages of the middle class. It's simply class warfare.
That should be obvious to any monkey. But then, most people are dumb as monkeys and have no idea what's going on.
No comments:
Post a Comment