The Economy: People Are Going To Die
Let’s be really clear about a consequence of the enormous stress that Americans are under because of the ongoing economic meltdown: People are going to die.
People are going to die because their cars run out of $5 per gallon gas on some godforsaken back road.
People are going to die because “compassionate conservatism” was a Republican focus-group talking point and not a way for the government to give a leg up to people in need.
People are going to die this summer because they can’t afford to stay cool and this winter because they can’t afford to stay warm.
People are going to die because the sweeping deregulation of Wall Street banks and other financial institutions has rewarded the powerful and rich at the expense of the middle class.
People are going to die because they are uninsured and won’t seek out the medical treatment they need until it’s too late.
People are going to die because they believe that sticking their head in a lit oven is preferable to trying to scrape by after their pension plan collapses.
People are going to die because stimulus checks go only so far in providing the recommended daily allowance of nutrients.
People are going to die because some nut who can’t get his unemployment benefits extended shoots up a fast-food joint or shopping mall.
People are going to die because the U.S. dollar is an increasingly worthless piece of paper.
People are going to die because the president and his economic advisors are in deep denial.
People are going to die because there are no quick fixes, only difficult long-term solutions that will not check the current meltdown and take the kind of courage to enact that has been sorely lacking in slavishly pro-business, pro-deregulation and anti-consumer Washington.
This is one of several posts at Kiko’s House today related to the economy.
26 Responses to “The Economy: People Are Going To Die”
I guess someone forgot to talk their lithium today. Can you really argue that a politician from Chicago where the local politicians refuse to allow Wal-Mart to build but want people to buy their food at local stores that chage twice as much as Wal-Mart are really pro-consumer.
Can you really argue that when the Democratic nominee for President wants fuel prices to go higher that he really cares about people freezing?
Can you really argue that politicians who want the race and ethnicity of your doctor, your teachers, your local fireman,or your local law enforcement to be more important that their competence really cares whether you live or die?
Are you really going to argue that politicians who want open borders and unlimited immigration really care about your family's income, the education of your children, your quality of life, or your health?
Are you really going to argue that politicians who believe that social engineering in the public schools is much more imporant than academic learning really care that a large portion or Americans are too illiterate to understand medical instructions or read the package that their medication came in.
ARe you really going to aruge that politicians who want to empty jails and treat harden criminals as mental health patients really cares if you are mugged, beaten, or murdered?
Are you really going to argue that politicians who are too stupid and too imcompetent to think about the long term effects of their short term policy decisions really care about you? Maybe if politicians had insisted that companies fully fund their pension programs make in the 1960's and 1970's instead of depneding over future business growth, people would have a pension. But then again, no one on the left is ever going to trust people to look out for themselves. Then again, if the only education people get is in the inner city public schools, they are not educated enough to think about much.
[...] [...]
Obama – the candidate that can stop death in his tracks!
Jeez Shaun, even by your non-existent ethical and journalistic standards, this post really takes the case.
Is your next one going to be how Obama can absolve us of all our sins and raise the dead, or will you go more with the something like 'Republicans are devil worshipers; practice live sacrifice of minority children in Satanic rituals'?
Dear snarks:
I probably am wasting my time pointing out that my post does not mention or allude to Obama. And SuperD, thank you for your usual racist/xenophobic rant.
In fact, if you guys stop breathing so hard into that paper bag you will note that I argue that dealing with long-term systemic economic problems may be impossible given the political climate and although you didn't ask, I certainly don't see Obama — let alone McCain as the cure.
Shaun,
If you want to talk about people dying, let’s include the millions that have died and continue to die each year because liberals believed the nonsense in “Silent Spring” and brought about the knee-jerk discontinuation of DDT to prevent malaria.
If you want to discuss suffering, let’s have a discussion of liberal teacher union protection that dooms millions of inner-city kids to a life of ignorance and poverty.
The difference between us is that I know that liberals are good, caring people who simply don’t think their positions through. You, on the other hand, believe conservatives are evil.
In medieval times, the learned, caring physicians wanted to help people through bloodletting. It wasn’t until they stepped back and reevaluated their beliefs that they stopped killing people with their good intentions and misguided methods.
If you would just step back for a moment and drop the idea that you and your liberal friends are morally superior, you may find that the very positions you have advocated over the years have caused the misery you so want to heal.
Don't worry Shaun. I can play SD's and AR's game…
Our conservative friends would like us to focus on killing people in Iraq for the foreseeable future. A million dead Iraqis isn't enough I suppose. Or does none of that matter when you live in a gated community tended by illegal immigrant labor?
But at least they've got a solution. More tax cuts! But not for normal people. Let's make those tax cuts go to oil and banking execs. Think of the pain they've gone through in these last few months. Oh the humanity!
Shaun,
Prince William County in Virginia announced that homocides were down from 2006 to 2007. The difference is that in 2007 the county decided to crack down on illegal aliens. However, I realized long ago that the progressive, “reality based community” never lets even a single fact stand in the way of it prejudices.
And thank you for demostating the hypothesis that a liberal can never have a discussion about anything without calling someone else a racist. I guess the idea and desire for equality and due process is just another sign of systematic racism in the U.S. today.
Just for fun, here's a link for Shaun.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/those_me…
Good Post Shaun!!
I've always wondered what a cause and effect study on the life expectancy of the people who lost their life savings as a result of the Savings and Loan crisis from the 80's would show. I image quite a few people ended dead and buried because of the greed and moral failures of our political leaders and corporate elite. Also, imagine what a causal study would show on life expectancy of Enron pensioners and investors.
Jwest, maybe you aren't aware of this, but DDT continues to be used in many parts of the world for malaria control, although there are problems when overeliance results in resistant strains of mosquitos. Other, more effective means are being explored, but DDT is still a lifesaver in places like Africa. The rest of your rant is, unfortunately, mostly typical partisan hyperbole.
The right needs to learn how to assume accountability for the actions of a government they once cheered and defended if they expect to be seen as credible. Needless to say, that goes for both sides of the aisle.
Loviatar,
Surely you know that no depositor lost a dime in the Savings and Loan crisis. Of course, the four Democrat senators (plus John McCain) who were involved in the Keating Five scandal deserved to be rebuked for their actions.
As my original point on Shaun’s article states, if you would just slow down, get the facts and think things through, you would come to better conclusions.
JSpencer,
As with Loviatar, you are operating with a small slice of the full story. As I stated above, I’m sure you, Shaun and rest of the liberals didn’t set out to become mass murders of the African population, you just wanted to protect them from the profit-crazed chemical companies.
No one is doubting the love and affection you have for all those whose lives you ruin, it’s just that some of us think a little less caring would leave a whole lot more people alive.
Shaun,
Despite, the Academy Award worthy partisan warriors responding to your post, what you said is something we all need to hear. That the news isn't good, may explain the apoplectic responses.
Unfortunately, many of these folks would rather hear a meaningless slogan and call that patriotism than look reality in the eye.
You are abolutely right. There is no quick fix. The best we can do is adapt and ride it out. Long term solutions will be dalayed becasue of the Bush administration's refusal to look real life in the face. Instead, scant resouces were wasted to prop up what was clearly failing.
This is no time for fairy tales. McCain has listed old ideas under a new ttile: The Lexington Project. Everything on that list is either re-cycled Bush or borrowed from Obama. Id rather stick with the originator of new ideas, who understands the importance of job creation as part of energy policy.
I love how jpeople like jwest operate.
if you can't find anything to defend current policies, dredge up something from the past to lay the blame on Democrats. I suppose we could re-examine the Industrilal Revolution and the Reconcstruction Era for further argument.
If everything else fails, we could argue about evolution.
That's called deflection and distraction, and it's a gimmick,.
Sticking to more recent events, and general trends, let's call a spade a spade.
Government bail-outs don't happen with manna from heaven. The tax payer pays.
Relative to income, the less you have, the more you pay, exempting those who have no rmeaningful income at all. To do this honestly, you have to also calculate in the flat tax paid on goods snd services, and the lack of tax loopholes for the have-nots.
Look what the Reps have done with recent bills, Obstruct , obstrct, obstruc. At least , they force compromises that are counter-productive, and when the result doesn't work well, they are ready with the 'Democratic Congress' bit..
Now that McCain is on board again with the tax-cuts, electing him would ensure more people dying.
I could endorse reducing corporate taxes IF loopholes were eliminated at the same time. Our current tax rate is a joke, because a wealthy corporation can avoid paying by moving its address offshore.
The next president will inherit one nightmare of a mess. Let's hope that he can turn a corner on some portion of it. Getting the whole thing straightened out is also a long term project, and .no one should expect miracles any time soon.
hello everyone; just stepping into the room only for a moment to remind everyone, to please stay with the topics, which I believe you are for the most part… please dont be attacking the writer or each other.
passionate discussion is useful and often interesting. Carry on.
I'm not mom. Just,
dr.e, assistant editor,
a/k/a cook and bottle washer
Hi mom.
Thanks Mom.
Runasim,
The overarching point of Shaun’s article is that people are going to die due to conservative principles, programs and general swings in the economy.
My point is that regardless of what the republicans do, they could never hope to equal the death, misery and poverty brought on by liberals trying to help.
If you have a certain current policy in mind that you believe is hurting people and that liberals have a better idea on, please let me know and we can discuss the finer points.
jwest,
I hope you realize that their is a HUGE difference in people possibly dying as a result of someone trying to do good and people dying as a result of active malicious harm (IRAQ, ENRON, BUSH TAX CUTS).
Everyone,
jwest has now defined the conservative moral equivalently criteria:
Killing people by starting a war of choice or by looting their pensions and retirement plans or by locking them into the poor underclass through you tax and economic policies.
=
Possibility killing people through your attempt to protect them from toxic chemicals.
Come on we can all do it, I'm sure we can all think of one “conservative moral equivalent. Its easy, think of the most outrageous thing a conservative has done and them compare it to a liberal mishap.
I'll start us off.
Watergate
=
Getting a blowjob.
Lovitar,
On people dying due to the war in Iraq, you might have point. The object of a war is to kill the enemy and destroy their capacity to be a threat. Of course, the 1 million dead figure that is so easily thrown around by liberals has about as much credibility as the sharks that still follow the slave ship routes.
As far as I know, the only person to have died as an indirect result of the Enron collapse was Ken Lay. I’m sure you don’t loose a lot of sleep over him.
If you have any articles (from a credible source) about the people dying from lower taxes, which increased the revenue received by the federal government, please pass those along.
At least you have the intellectual honesty to admit that the continued killing of millions of Africans each year is a result of a “liberal mishap”.
Jwest, with regard to “intellectual honesty”, it might be better if you didn't use the phrase in a paragraph that demonstrates your own shaky grasp of it.
jwest,
As JSpencer points out your grasp of “intellectual honesty” is on par with your grasp of moral equivalency. And as Mom asked us to play nice I won't speak to your intellect, however in regards to your honesty I call bull@#$%.
I pointed out that you compared a war of choice with spraying toxic chemicals and you responded with the classic conservative word play.
Pay attention now I'll explain it in 3 easy steps.
Step 1: Create Strawman, then knock down strawman supposedly proving your opponents lack of credibility.
On people dying due to the war in Iraq, you might have point. The object of a war is to kill the enemy and destroy their capacity to be a threat. Of course, the 1 million dead figure that is so easily thrown around by liberals has about as much credibility as the sharks that still follow the slave ship routes
Step 2: Ask for data from a “credible” source, if not provided immediately from a conservative approved source, this then definitely proves your opponents lack of credibility.
If you have any articles (from a credible source) about the people dying from lower taxes, which increased the revenue received by the federal government, please pass those along.
Step 3: Insult you opponent either obnoxiously (Bill O’Reilly Sean Hannity) or surreptitiously (William Kristol) showing you are a winner and they are losers.
At least you have the intellectual honesty to admit that the continued killing of millions of Africans each year is a result of a “liberal mishap”.
We all know where you standards are and mine are well north of that, and I refuse to engage with you in your little game. I recommend that you play with yourself (the game that is), its the only pleasure you'll probably get tonight.;>)
“… please dont be attacking the writer or each other. “
An excellent suggestion. Personally attacking people shows that the attacker lacks the information and logic to form an argument that sustains their point of view.
As I have mentioned, I'm sure Shaun, Lovitar, JSpencer and many others care deeply for their fellow human beings. They have probably spent countless hours demonstrating through the beauty of Interpretive Dance how the birds and trees would rejoice if we all just looked after one another.
I can only point to the facts and hope that someday they each will look at the world and ask “What have I done?”
For your enjoyment and hopefully deep reflection:
Theodoric of York: Well, I'll do everything humanly possible. Unfortunately, we barbers aren't gods. You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning all the time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease like your daughter's was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays we know that Isabelle is suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach.
Joan: You charlatan! You killed my daughter, just like you killed most of my other children! Why don't you admit it! You don't know what you're doing!
Theodoric of York: [ steps toward the camera ] Wait a minute. Perhaps she's right. Perhaps I've been wrong to blindly folow the medical traditions and superstitions of past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a “scientific method”. Maybe this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning: the natural sciences, art, architecture, navigation. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance! [ thinks for a minute ] Naaaaaahhh!
Loviatar,
You make one scant point in your rambling comment concerning my comparing a “war of choice” with the deionization of DDT.
OK, I’ll go with that.
George Bush took the information from the US, French, German, Belgian, Italian, Russian, Israeli and other intelligence agencies (who were in complete agreement) that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to acquire nuclear material. In the aftermath of 9/11, he determined that the dynamic of preemptive war was necessary in order to negate the impending threat.
He asked congress for permission to go to war – they agreed. He asked the U.N. for a resolution to use force if Saddam didn’t declare all materials and allow intrusive inspections – they agreed. When the imposed deadline came and went without Saddam’s positive action, we did what we promised congress and the world we would do.
I’m perfectly OK with that.
On the other hand, one lunatic fringe liberal writes a fear mongering book to scare people away from a chemical that saved millions of lives throughout Central America, Africa and Asia, but that the author thought might cause cancer. Through a system of innuendo and misinformation, other liberals took up the cause and made it next to impossible for effective spraying to be carried out in those nations that most needed it.
No cancer link was ever found, no facts to support the fear, just liberal paranoia that since it was a chemical company, they must be out to kill people for profit.
The willful ignorance and self-aggrandizing arrogance of the mob who promoted the discontinuation of DDT is criminal in the purest sense of the word.
So, on the first point we have a President who acted with the full consent of the American people and the world.
On the second we have an ill-informed mob responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths.
deionization = demonization
(I'll spell check next time)
Trust me, the spell checking should be the least of your concerns. You're partly right about the DDT, and partly right about Iraq, but basing your diatribe on fragments of knowledge and filling the rest in with partisan rancor is like muliplying zero by one. The result is still zero.