Too Much Money?

 Ol' Mitch and the boys don't like human infrastructure unless it's made up of masses of serfs.

"Feudalism; now that's a real economic system!" Ol' Mitch has been heard muttering in the cloakroom.

So the fact that the white racist and religion party (new logo: WR&R) doesn't want to spend any money on health, childcare, pre-K education, K-12 education or implement modest tax increases for the hyper rich is not a surprise.

But the fact that a couple Democrats are putting two more nails in the coffin of a real leap forward for most of us, and for the very future of  the United States as a prosperous and world leading nation, is a surprise, and is inexcusable.

The "minus two" take the simplistically facile approach of saying "it's too expensive".

I saw Paul Krugman interviewed recently.

He's a New York Times correspondent and 2008 Nobel Laureate. 

He told the Senate (a hopeless attempt in relation to 50 of the senators) to "do the math".

He points out that over the next ten years - the time span during which the 3.5 trillion dollars of the human infrastructure proposal would be spent - the economy will be a three hundred trillion dollar phenomenon.

So the democrats, minus two, are asking the United States to invest 1% of the economy in its people.

Serfs are chattel; healthy, smart, educated and motivated people are capital.

I can't think of a more stark statement in support of the merits of moving on the  human infrastructure proposal.

Or in illustrating the difference between Democrats (minus two) and the WR&R gang.

As counter point, note that the WR&R gang and the minus two have no problem spending 3% yearly on "defense".

On Point | Listen to Podcasts On Demand Free | TuneIn