Skip to main content

View Diary: You See Where This is Headed, Right? (271 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The first thing to do is to point out that the (12+ / 0-)

    sequester is just a new term for a decades old habit of rationing the currency to reward friends and punish their enemies -- people who don't vote right. This time it has to be more blatant because the electorate did not vote right. Were it not for the gerrimanders, the old timers would be out on their rears. So, they are not happy and somebody's gonna pay.
    We've been worried about their little PACs and slush funds, when Congress has been playing with the entire federal purse to dole out favors in dollars for contracts as they used to dole out grazing and water and mining and drilling rights. The Congress has always been in the business of giving free resources that their cronies could take to market for a profit.
    The environment is something to be exploited for profit, not protected. If it is to be rationed, it is only to make certain portions more valuable temporarily (Think oil leases that haven't been accessed. Why do they want more when they haven't used what they have?  To keep others from getting their hands on them).

    If more dollars are recycled through the Treasury, Congress critters won't be able to rob Peter to pay Paul without Peter catching on that the critters are just mean.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:58:48 PM PDT

    •  Remember Krugman on the fake deficit? Real (3+ / 0-)

      "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

      by jm214 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:16:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ration, sequester, fake deficit, failure by (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jm214

        design, bankruptcy are all variations on the same theme. We could also call it induced scarcity. One problem with devising lingo to describe the Cons is that compound phrases are ineffective because they don't understand the qualifying function of the adjective or adverb. So, for example, "fake deficit" can be parsed as two nouns that are in opposition to each other, similar to cost benefit. One man's cost is another man's benefit and one man's fake is another man's deficit. The phrase ends up being an affirmation of the deficit as real.
        Sequester is actually a better word, even though in turning a verb into a noun, the meaning tends to get lost. That Congress is "hiding a stash" would be harder to ignore. Since the meaning of sequester is uncertain, it seems natural to focus on the effects of the deprivation on the innocent victims and we all get carried away with sympathy for them.

        Perhaps it is the nature of uncertainty to elicit emotional, rather than logical reactions. But sympathy prevents us from taking action to stop the abusers and deprivators. "Deprivator," btw is not a recognized word. Depriver probably is. However, "deprivation" is a legal term, as in "deprivation of rights," and applies to an injustice which the simple "deprive" does not imply. There is more negative intent involved with deprivation and so the perpetrators should, IMHO, be called deprivators.  
        Why someone would take something he does not want for himself is a puzzlement to those who aren't similarly inclined. The same motivation seems to be present in people who pull the wings off flies. Deprivators inflict suffering. I suppose that's sadism. Hard to imagine. But then, so is failure by design.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:22:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site