"We're going to be doing a lot of deficit cutting over the next several years," David Brooks announced, plurally, in their column in today's New York Times. Little-known fact: the byline "David Brooks" is produced by five guys named "David Brook." They all get together and agree on stuff!
...
Heh.
...
What happens when there is no money to give to the people who have no money? That is the moral question. It's fine to say that the old people should have saved more, they should have worked an extra job, they should have done without cable TV, they should have invested more wisely. Saying that doesn't change the fact that there will be old people who do not have money. These old people will believe that they need food and shelter and medical care.
Will they get it? At the arch-plutocrats' end of things, the Koch brothers' end, the end occupied by the most devout worshippers of Ayn Rand, the answer is: no. That's the goal. It's long since time for the sloppy, implicit, badly supported social contract to go away. Rich people have been trimming their contribution to the general revenue for decades now. They are not interested in paying the premium that keeps old people and ailing people or just backward people out of the streets. If the day comes that they have to travel to and from their various compounds in armored helicopters, they can afford the helicopters. It's not their problem.
...
As Gordon says, "a lot more between the quotes".
Reminds me of a concept Isaac Asimov used as a prop in one of his books. People running out of resources reasoned out (read:people like Bobo) that once someone reaches 60, they are a waste of time and resources and should be done away with. Like the movie Logan's Run and an episode of Star Trek: TNG, they made the end into a ceremony, something the oldsters looked forward to instead of something to dread.
That's where they're going in this country. If the Rethugs/Corporatists thought the teabaggers and Fox 'News' would buy into it, they'd be pushing it now.
No comments:
Post a Comment