I don’t know if there is a more effective analytical journalist than this wonderful 3 year-old whose mother brought her to the definitely PG-13 Ted Cruz’s pre-campaign campaign stop last week. (listen carefully and have a Kleenex ready at 44 seconds)
“world on fiwah?”
“The world is on fire. Yes, YOUR world is on fire.”
No, no it isn’t.” There are problems, they aren’t nearly the problems we had, say, in 1935, 1943, or the existential threats we faced from potential nuclear annihilation after we decided we could drop two atomic bombs on our enemies, and thankfully have been a part of a world that has not used this technology on populations centers since.
We are actually doing pretty well all things considered as long as your source of news isn’t the catastr-o-rama of Glenn Beck’s world. Problems? Absolutely, but we here in the U.S. most of us continue to be buffered from the worst of them. The ones we should be addressing like racial, income and wealth inequality and climate change (wait, maybe the world is on fire?)* are not even on Ted’s radar.
Bill Maher asks a former Republican Congressman to square this rhetorical circle. How is it that the economy is on fire?
Turns out the reason is that inequality is unconscionable. Solution? Even more supply-side economics.
Are we finally getting the picture?
“Exaggerating threats to fleece gullible rubes?” Maybe?
I’m going to repost in it’s entirety the question Paul Krugman posed in his column last week, b/c I think it’s something we have to continue to ask ourselves as the Republican policy solutions continue to fail the underlying issues.
a) What is their motivation? … and …
b) How do they keep pulling the wool over our eyes?
Paul K. I think answers the first and I think the 3 year-old can help us understand the second.
So, no, outrageous fiscal mendacity is neither historically normal nor bipartisan. It’s a modern Republican thing. And the question we should ask is why.
One answer you sometimes hear is that what Republicans really believe is that tax cuts for the rich would generate a huge boom and a surge in revenue, but they’re afraid that the public won’t find such claims credible. So magic asterisks are really stand-ins for their belief in the magic of supply-side economics, a belief that remains intact even though proponents in that doctrine have been wrong about everything for decades.
But I’m partial to a more cynical explanation. Think about what these budgets would do if you ignore the mysterious trillions in unspecified spending cuts and revenue enhancements. What you’re left with is huge transfers of income from the poor and the working class, who would see severe benefit cuts, to the rich, who would see big tax cuts. And the simplest way to understand these budgets is surely to suppose that they are intended to do what they would, in fact, actually do: make the rich richer and ordinary families poorer.
John Chiv (and? Unbelievable) Mea Culpa again? In my eagerness to unite disparate identities to an IP, I might have jumped the gun. So, to be clear, from this exchange, from the little I understand about I.P. addresses, it seems there are circumstances where different individuals could be posting from the same one. I think the solution to this is – understanding this is a work in progress – that I somehow draw attention to those posters posting from the same IP and leave it to them to give us feedback, if they choose, if they are the same IRL (in real life) person or not.