RE: Why cuts everywhere, regardless of budget, is lunacy
January 14, 2013 at 7:13 pm
(This post was last modified: January 14, 2013 at 7:22 pm by jonb.)
Why I personally don't like arguments of left and right.
Yes the republicans, from what I can sea from this side of the sea are owned by the 1% so that the argument is twisted from individual ownership to centralist control. But the problem with the left is that it is also owned by the 1% so their argument is twisted from care of the individual to that of a centralist state's handouts.
This is not just an American problem.
I would say the true strength of an economy is in the small independent companies, not the large corporations. I would say the way to value a society is how does it value the individuals within it. Given these as my starting points I don't see political parties which further any part of my agenda.
Every party would save a large bank, but let householders go to the wall.
Cuts everywhere, but not the 1%'s wealth.
In Britain the Chancellor announced as part of the budget he was taxing the rich, but what he did was cut the taxes on the 1% but increased the number of people described as rich. Thus the 1% paid less, but the rest of the top 10% paid more.
Yes the republicans, from what I can sea from this side of the sea are owned by the 1% so that the argument is twisted from individual ownership to centralist control. But the problem with the left is that it is also owned by the 1% so their argument is twisted from care of the individual to that of a centralist state's handouts.
This is not just an American problem.
I would say the true strength of an economy is in the small independent companies, not the large corporations. I would say the way to value a society is how does it value the individuals within it. Given these as my starting points I don't see political parties which further any part of my agenda.
Every party would save a large bank, but let householders go to the wall.
Cuts everywhere, but not the 1%'s wealth.
In Britain the Chancellor announced as part of the budget he was taxing the rich, but what he did was cut the taxes on the 1% but increased the number of people described as rich. Thus the 1% paid less, but the rest of the top 10% paid more.
