Did you know this? Instead of spending the $800 billion on all the "shovel-ready" stuff that the president told us he'd be doing, they're spending more on "social programs" to repair the "human infrastructure" that is "decaying". The programs are supposed to be things like health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps and other social services. Why the shift?
When President Obama announced that he wanted to modernize the country's infrastructure, the women's groups went bonkers. "Sure, you want to provide new jobs for men. What about women??!!" So they joined forces and brought to bear their considerable forces and produced a change in focus so that women would be getting new jobs.
What no one (until now) is talking about is the disparity between male lost jobs and female lost jobs. Of the nearly 6 million lost jobs between December 2007 and May 2009, nearly 80% were jobs lost by males. In contrast, women tend to be in more "recession-proof" careers such as education and health care. In the same period, these areas have gained nearly 600,000 jobs. So in a recession where women are losing far less jobs than men and are even gaining jobs where men are not, the government's plan has shifted from saving our crumbling infrastructure to gaining more jobs for women and largely ignoring the already monumental task of rescuing jobs for men.
Does this bother anyone but me?
7 comments:
Unfortunately, this is just one of way too many things to be bothered by...it's definitely a sad thing to see what is happening to our (once) great country.
Hey, Ryan! You're back! Nice to see you again!
If the gov. had cut taxes an amount that would have equaled 800 Billion, if history is any indication of the future, the short fall would have equaled less than 800 billion in the short and long run due to the increase in economic activity. President Obama has said he realizes the reality of this but went on to say that he wants things to be fair. Since “fair” many times is a subjective feeling; and since we live in a relativistic culture with no objective standard from which to judge these events; in the vain of socialist tradition, fair will end up being whatever the government says it is.
The debate on who gets the money is moot once the government takes it. Not that the government doesn’t need and deserve being paid for the work of governing, but because the money was taken, not for the purposes of governing, but for the purposes of purchasing power.
"He wants things to be fair"
I've understood that to mean, "We want to do the most damage to the people with the most money." (Of course, no one would say it that way. They would say, "We want to take the money from people who can afford to lose it.") Of course, given that the top 10% income earners are paying over 70% of the income taxes, one has to ask "What is fair?" (According to a recent IRS report, the top 400 people in the country pay 2% of the tax burden all on their own.) I don't know. I guess I have a big problem with the word "fair" when America believes that "fair" is when half the country pays no income tax, but can vote to increase taxes on the other half so they can get more handouts.
Dan said...
President Obama has said he realizes the reality of this but went on to say that he wants things to be fair.
Source?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8
This is the best I can do. It is not the clip that I actually heard, so it is not my really my source, which was more blatant. I'll look for it. The clip I heard was poor in quality, kind of like those from "Joe the Plumber". The reasoning is still very simular.
Thanks.
Post a Comment