Republicans say hurricane won't stop budget cuts
Via Reuters:
My normal response would be rage and/or frustration. But now, I JUST DON'T GET IT.
Republicans in Congress on Wednesday rejected calls by Democrats to suspend work on tax cuts, that would mainly benefit the rich, and spending reductions on social programs because of the huge costs of hurricane relief.
"Now is not the time to cut services for our most vulnerable, cut taxes for our most fortunate and add $35 billion to the deficit," the Democratic leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives said in a letter to their Republican counterparts.Congressional committees face a September 16 deadline to come up with $35 billion in spending reductions over five years to programs including the Medicaid health-care program for the poor, student loans, food stamps and pension insurance.
The committees are also scheduled to approve $70 billion in tax cuts this month. The cuts could be extensions of reductions on capital gains and dividends, which affect mainly the incomes of the wealthy.
My normal response would be rage and/or frustration. But now, I JUST DON'T GET IT.
posted by christie at 11:15 PM
2 Comments:
Not in response to this entry perse but to your subheader with the "inane trivialities" and whatever: First, the subheader appears to imply that one of the motives behind establishing this "political blog" is to set the authors "a world apart" from their peers, which smacks of a high-handed arrogance most regrettable in a field where educating others is one of the most important goals. Overall, the subheader sets the tone of the blog to be snobbish, elitist, and rather uneducated.
Second and more importantly, most of the entries here read like politically narrow-minded rants replete with misleading assertions. In other words, nearly everything here is thesis-driven bitching, which is something one definitely wants to avoid if he were to aspire to be a respected member of academia. Forget about posturing yourselves as politically outspoken - if I want to read intellectually dishonest criticism of whatever issue, I'll flip to the opinion section of the paper. Rather than being angry (or keeping the appearances of being angry), get involved in a national advocacy group or hit the ground with the activists for whatever cause.
I'd consider that comment about elitism (sp?) legitimate if it weren't coming from you, Mr. "Ad Hominem x2=-100"
Second of all... I'm sorry if it's kind of confusing, but I based "inane trivialities" part on my own life.
If I was trying to write factual reports, I wouldn't be blogging. It's my opinions. Some people agree to them, some people don't. I don't believe, Mr. Tsuei, that it's any of your business how I want to express them and how I want to stay politically informed.
Post a Comment
<< Home