|
Each depends upon the premise that cutting costs for corporations, big pharma or insurance companies will translate into jobs, cheaper drugs and cheaper insurance respectively.
Well, guess what? Business Weekly did a study of average CEO pay to average worker pay. In 1980 it was 40 to 1. In 1991 it was 80 to 1. In 2001 it was 540 to 1. You cut costs for corporations, they enrich their board members, their executives, and their investors. That's the point of their existence--to make a profit. All these ideas are simply prole-vantage covers for cutting corporate costs, and therefore insuring greater profits and salaries for corporations.
Every single significant social program he set forth can be reduced to this formula.
Don't get me started about his education proposal. Let's just say that there are differences between kids who grow up in suburbia whose parents(!) have extra time for parenting, and those who grow up in urban areas with a single parent who has to work three or four crap jobs just to survive, and can't provide the same parenting time.
It's like you have two baseball teams, each of the same ability. Yet one has practiced the game for years, and the other has barely had exposure to the basic equipment. Bush wants to set them against each other, and whoever plays the game more poorly gets punished with crappier equipment and less-talented coaching. It is violently repugnant to me the way he covers his tracks with talk of 'soft bigotry'--there is no difference in ability, but there is a HUGE difference in environment and economic advantages that must be accounted for.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
