Zomping Out of the "Super Committee"
Following the abortive fight a few months ago between the Presidency and the Congress over raising the Government's debt limit, the "super committee" that was then set up announced yesterday that after weeks of playing what an Air Force friend of many years ago might have called "playing grab-ass," they had failed to reach any agreement on their supposed goal of eliminating 1.2 trillion dollars from the Federal budget.
There's a bit of weeping and wailing over this, though it has all the look of being just a lot of crocodile tears. And it stood to reason that they would fail anyway, because their numbers by party were equal, six to six, and because, being members of Congress, they weren't the best people for the job, being as how, in general, Congress men and women are not the best people for any job of any importance.
This failure to agree is supposed to lead to automatic cuts that will now be made anyway, to the weapons of legal atrocities that are euphemistically called "war" and that are the Republicans' bread and butter and to the means of well-being for the less favored members of the populace that are the Democrats' chief interest, But little of real value is likely to come of that either, since these very same mischief-makers, the Conresspeople, have the means to tinker with that, too.
But even with that giant letdown still in prospect, some people argue strenuously that the Democrats came out ahead with the super committee's failure, while others are insisting just as vehemently that it was the Republicans who came out ahead, with both groups saying that their sides will now gain more through the automatic cuts.
It's highly baffling, this fact that it can't be clear as to who came out better. After all, isn't this -- and in fact everything to do with economics -- a simple matter of dollars and cents? You count how many dollars and cents you have -- not the money that you can raise or borrow but the money that you have right there at hand, which shouldn't be too hard to do, and then you count what the most important things you want will cost, and then you go on and spend your bucks first on those things. No fuss, no muss.
But no. Instead people from way back in the Middle Ages have found ways to invest economics with all kinds of hocus-pocus and other tomfoolery, just as other pursuits, such as religion and the law, have also done, so as to make these activities impenetrable to all but the Chosen Few. And so, by this late date in history, you have religion that is largely hypocrisy and legal systems that are largely criminal and economic systems that are largely resource-wasting and indecipherable even to the people that profess to know all about it. And if that's not true, then someone should inform me as to exactly why so many, if not all of the supposedly advanced countries and therefore in possession of the great majority of the top brains, are at this very moment deeply mired in economic confusion, conflicts, apprehensions, and paralysis.
There's a bit of weeping and wailing over this, though it has all the look of being just a lot of crocodile tears. And it stood to reason that they would fail anyway, because their numbers by party were equal, six to six, and because, being members of Congress, they weren't the best people for the job, being as how, in general, Congress men and women are not the best people for any job of any importance.
This failure to agree is supposed to lead to automatic cuts that will now be made anyway, to the weapons of legal atrocities that are euphemistically called "war" and that are the Republicans' bread and butter and to the means of well-being for the less favored members of the populace that are the Democrats' chief interest, But little of real value is likely to come of that either, since these very same mischief-makers, the Conresspeople, have the means to tinker with that, too.
But even with that giant letdown still in prospect, some people argue strenuously that the Democrats came out ahead with the super committee's failure, while others are insisting just as vehemently that it was the Republicans who came out ahead, with both groups saying that their sides will now gain more through the automatic cuts.
It's highly baffling, this fact that it can't be clear as to who came out better. After all, isn't this -- and in fact everything to do with economics -- a simple matter of dollars and cents? You count how many dollars and cents you have -- not the money that you can raise or borrow but the money that you have right there at hand, which shouldn't be too hard to do, and then you count what the most important things you want will cost, and then you go on and spend your bucks first on those things. No fuss, no muss.
But no. Instead people from way back in the Middle Ages have found ways to invest economics with all kinds of hocus-pocus and other tomfoolery, just as other pursuits, such as religion and the law, have also done, so as to make these activities impenetrable to all but the Chosen Few. And so, by this late date in history, you have religion that is largely hypocrisy and legal systems that are largely criminal and economic systems that are largely resource-wasting and indecipherable even to the people that profess to know all about it. And if that's not true, then someone should inform me as to exactly why so many, if not all of the supposedly advanced countries and therefore in possession of the great majority of the top brains, are at this very moment deeply mired in economic confusion, conflicts, apprehensions, and paralysis.
posted by Carl (aka Sofarsogoo) | 9:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home