Ok, so, for lack of a better intro, since I don't really have one, this is from Matt Taibbi's "Taibblog" on Rolling Stone's website:
"Social Security was never the cause of the nation's debt problems. This issue dates all the way back to the Eighties, when Ronald Reagan hired Alan Greenspan to chair the National Commission on Social Security Reform, ostensibly to deal with a looming shortfall in the fund. Greenspan's solution was to hike Social Security tax rates (they went from 9.35% in 1981 to 15.3% in 1990) and build up a "surplus" that could be used to pay Baby Boomers their social security checks 30 years down the road. They raised the SS taxes all right, but they didn't save the money for any old Baby Boomers in the 2000s. Instead, Reagan blew that money paying for eight years of deficit spending and tax cuts. Three presidents after him used the same trick."
Anyways, I found this interesting in a purely factual way, since I was raised to despise Reagan and I've spent a great deal of my life accumulating reasons as to why said hatred is so necessary. He seemed like a mask, very fake, not really in charge, unaware of a lot of things, given wayyyy to much credit for the hostage situation, and, I don't like his economic plan. This Social Security thing just feeds the flame, so to speak. I digress.
My point is actually the rest of Taibbi's blog, which consists partially of him saying how a former Nixon aide who he met confused him with Matt Bai, a writer for the NYT. Taibbi, apparently, doesn't like Bai. At all. I know very little about Matt Bai, but the image Taibbi gives is one of a really "agreeable" liberal--agreeable in the worst way possible, like, far too quick to bend for Republican appeasement, ready to mock more extreme liberals (or, really, non-moderates), without any solid liberal philosophy, and completely enamored with the idea that bi-partisanship is best executed as pure centrism without any dogma at all. Taibbi says that Bai wants Obama to bend for Boehner&Co., give the Republicans what they want. But the Republicans, currently, don't want that. When your entire platform revolves around hating someone, the last thing you want is for that person to become less-than-hateable.
In that sense, then, bi-partisanship is a myth, and would be detrimental to the US' political system. I'm not saying that I like how polarized the country is. I don't. I hate it very much. But centrism is boring, and I think the clash of ideologies is necessary in order for the truth to appear. That said, I also hate extremist ideologies. But I'm not a politician. I mean, I'm currently blogging about another blogger's blog, which is about another writer entirely. My opinion on anything, particularly the pros-and-cons of a political climate, are not really that valid. Whatever. I like politics regardless.
I also saw the federal reserve chairman on 60 Minutes. He's supposed to be non-partisan. I found that very confusing, since I'm so used to being in a world where people are clearly left or right. He was horrible on camera, very nervous and unprofessional, and I fail to believe that a guy who's job it is to watch a country's money couldn't see an economic meltdown (too harsh? panic? recession? what are we calling it?) coming. Hmm.
No comments:
Post a Comment