So the New York Times has decided that one the one hand and on the other hand, but the hand that is most important is the one that says that things are getting better and we can't afford to help the average person, now that the banks have gotten what they want. It is now time to cut the government spending and to go with the expatiation that the economy is going to get better simply through private incentive.
I do find it interesting that the ones who are most optimistic about this are the very ones who got us into this in the first place, but hey why should we be worried, I'm sure that they are right this time per Slacktivist:
This calls to mind an old story:
But knowing their hypocrisy, he said unto them, "Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a dime and let me see it."
And they brought one. Then he said to them, "whose head is this -- FDR's or Herbert Hoover's?"
They answered, "Roosevelt's."
And he said unto them, "Right. So shut up. Have you morons already forgotten the 20th Century? When the choice is between imitating what worked and what really, really didn't work, why are you pretending it's terribly complicated?"
And after, that no one dared to ask him any question.
1 comment:
And after, that no one dared to ask him any question.
Yes, they just called him a socialist and walked away, knowing they'd won the argument among the vast majority of chowderheads.
Post a Comment