Give us what we want or we will wreck the economy (and a Hitler anology)…

UPDATE: President Obama has now signed the debt ceiling legislation just passed by congress.

Bail us out said the big bankers or we’ll wreck the economy. And they were bailed out by the taxpayers (to include everyday ordinary citizens).

Promise to cut programs, said the tea baggers, many of which people depend upon, or that at least provide needed help, and don’t raise taxes, except leave what were supposed to be temporary tax reductions for the rich in place, or we’ll put the government into fiscal default and threaten the whole world economy.

Do you see a pattern here?

I think it’s called economic blackmail.

I don’t fault those who perpetrated the blackmail as much (I mean it’s political strategy) as the ones who fell for it.

It’s not really as much about saving money or making government run more efficiently as it is about one group or groups getting advantage over others. It’s also about certain groups being used and tricked into supporting things that will not benefit them.

At least that is the way it looks to me at this time.


ADD 1: Now these are my words here, but I got the idea for this next thought by listening to Tom Brokaw summarize what has happened. He remarked that the Tea Party, which had so much influence in all of this, played by the rules and was very transparent as to their aims – cut government spending and no new taxes. Well that reminds me of the fact that Adolf Hitler played by the democratic (small d, as they say) rules in Germany that existed at the time, getting elected and so on, but of course things changed once he got to the top. And I don’t mean to call the Tea Party Nazis. Maybe I’m just trying to say people have no reason not to know what lies ahead — it’s all very open. And some Tea Party members voted against the agreement, but in all I think that group can count a victory. And to be clear, Brokaw did not mention Hitler — that was my thought.



The term “tax cuts for the rich”, I admit, may be somewhat misleading for two reasons: one is that it is difficult to define “rich” or distinguish it from “middle class” and the other thing is that didn’t we all hear at the time President Obama decided to let the Bush tax cuts stay in place that if those tax cuts ended most all taxpayers, at least most well down into the middle class, would end up paying higher taxes? It’s all very confusing. Of course the problem is that the nation has resorted to borrowing money instead of paying as it goes. So many of us have had a strong dose of the implications of that methodology on a personal level.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: