oldroy wrote:
Why does Obama have to have one battle every few months to raise the national savings? Why do the Democrat Congress critters continually say we can't survive without raising the debt limit, by trillions of dollars? Somehow I think it is time for those who you take the word of to get to work on those politicians because they sure as hell don't understand what you keep saying about how you "save" money by spending it. You still haven't managed to help me understand how saving and debt are one and the same.
Why does Obama have to have one battle every few m... (
show quote)
It's a semantic problem. From the standpoint of the Treasury, maturing treasuries are a liability. From the standpoint of the private sector, maturing treasuries are interest-bearing assets.
The question is: what is the purpose of government? To have a low government liability or to have an asset-rich private sector?
I prefer the latter but I would want much less ine******y in the private sector. What should the v**ers want?
The preamble to the Constitution gives the answer: "...to provide for the general Welfare and to secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity".
Times change but the Founding Liberals cant change with them. They wrote what they wrote, and the most important word in the preamble to the Constitution is Posterity. The Founding Liberals understood why we are here on Earth: survival of the species is the motivating force of life.
A nation without a thriving young generation faces its doom. Care of the young is the highest priority of all the creatures on earth - except Conservatives. Care of our young must not end at birth. Post-natal care must also be the highest priority of federal, state, and local government.
Government must provide children with health care, education, and homes in a secure neighborhood. Children, from conception through university, must get all the health care, food, shelter, and play they need and as much education as they can absorb. Care of the young is a civilizations wisest investment.
A thriving young generation must include all children regardless of the wealth or poverty of their homes. Providing excellent care only for children of the rich will not produce enough brilliant leaders in technology, industry, and government. If you want all the cream, you have to milk all the cows. (Ninety-nine percent of all discoveries are found by one percent of all scientists.) A level playing field and equal opportunity from the moment of conception are the liberals core beliefs.
The health, education, and shelter of the young are more important than the leisure activity of the rich. Tax the tax havens! Eliminate tax-free municipal bonds and loop-holes for hedge-fund managers and their money-changing brethren in the temple!
Support for children by local taxes inevitably results in deprived areas, from Watts to Mississippi. To be equitably distributed, care of the young must be financed by progressive federal taxation. Commensurate with their means, all Americans, together as one, must share the load. Fairness and cooperation are the liberals core beliefs.
Conservatives hold the opposite view. They believe children should be rewarded or punished depending on how well or how poorly they choose their parents. They want the care of the young to be financed by local taxes so that school quality varies with class and so that science education is stunted by fundamentalist school boards. Is it a wonder that, according to the National Academy of Sciences report, while half of GDP growth depends on technology, the US is rated 48th in science and math education?
Instead of taxing wealthy estates, consisting mostly of untaxed capital gains and municipal bond interest, conservatives would endow the least productive segment of society: children of the rich. Since Congress can be bought, wealth is power and inherited wealth is inherited power, aristocracy, the exact opposite of democracy, the exact opposite of meritocracy. This is dishonesty and corruption. Conservatism is a crime against Nature.