Putting emission controls on SUVs isn't about keeping yuppies from paying surcharges. It's about lowering emissions. The current administration (I hesitate to call them Republicans, since Bush & co. seem to stand for big, invasive government and ridiculous controls on trade) would turn the atmosphere into pure CO2 before allowing their precious automotive lobby to spend any more than they absolutely have to on emissions controls.
And yeah, I'd say environmental protection is about giving poor people more opportunity, if you take a long-term view. Companies like Monsanto tend not to build toxin-spewing chemical factories in the backyards of the wealthy, and rich people don't tend to get born with birth defects because their mommas spent too much time drinking dioxin-laced water. Sure, in the short term, mom and dad get jobs. In the long term, mom and dad get cancer, and the kids aren't in any shape to join the workforce. Republican views of environmental stewardship are short-sighted at best, suicidal at worst.
SSI privatization is all about providing Social Security only to those who are intelligent enough and knowledgeable enough about personal finance to manage their own retirement. That takes financial security away from the vast majority of this country's population, and will ultimately prove more detrimental than beneficial, as the nation ends up trying to find some other way to take care of people who blew their social security funds on shady investment deals. That, and large investment firms will do whatever they can to milk the social security fund for whatever its worth, at the expense of the poorest beneficiaries (I used to work at State Street, I can tell you some stories about privatized state retirement funds that would turn your stomach).
You want to privatize Social Security? Turn it over to the guys that manage Harvard's endowment. They've managed to grow that fund no matter what the economic conditions were. That way we all see a better return on our investment, not just the select few who a) know how, and b) get lucky.
And Iraqi liberation? I'm sure the Iraqis think it's a splendid idea, and are really looking forward to the day that we come over there with some kind of plan for giving it to them.
no subject
And yeah, I'd say environmental protection is about giving poor people more opportunity, if you take a long-term view. Companies like Monsanto tend not to build toxin-spewing chemical factories in the backyards of the wealthy, and rich people don't tend to get born with birth defects because their mommas spent too much time drinking dioxin-laced water. Sure, in the short term, mom and dad get jobs. In the long term, mom and dad get cancer, and the kids aren't in any shape to join the workforce. Republican views of environmental stewardship are short-sighted at best, suicidal at worst.
SSI privatization is all about providing Social Security only to those who are intelligent enough and knowledgeable enough about personal finance to manage their own retirement. That takes financial security away from the vast majority of this country's population, and will ultimately prove more detrimental than beneficial, as the nation ends up trying to find some other way to take care of people who blew their social security funds on shady investment deals. That, and large investment firms will do whatever they can to milk the social security fund for whatever its worth, at the expense of the poorest beneficiaries (I used to work at State Street, I can tell you some stories about privatized state retirement funds that would turn your stomach).
You want to privatize Social Security? Turn it over to the guys that manage Harvard's endowment. They've managed to grow that fund no matter what the economic conditions were. That way we all see a better return on our investment, not just the select few who a) know how, and b) get lucky.
And Iraqi liberation? I'm sure the Iraqis think it's a splendid idea, and are really looking forward to the day that we come over there with some kind of plan for giving it to them.