Saturday, December 22, 2012


I wrote this quite a while ago - while the elections were still happening in the States, I believe.  But it's still a valid point and I think I narrowed down a laboured argument.  So, for what it's worth, here's another one of my opinions:

So here's what pisses me off - and a lot of you already know this - what pisses me off is: the older, mostly white, mostly male, mostly out of date, 1950s-generated attitude that the only thing of importance when deciding on your government is how well they can get more money in your pocket.  Economy!!!  THAT is the only subject that should concern you right now with regards to who you vote for or whom you support.

Here's my point of view - and I know a LOT of people would disagree with me:  THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN THE ECONOMY, PEOPLE!!!! (sorry for yelling).

Yes, it is important to be able to buy stuff (the things we need to live a healthy life).  Yes, it is important not to have a huge deficit.  But when people are voting, it seems to me that they are not as concerned with the deficit as they are with their personal bottom line - if this guy gets into office, will I have more money in my pocket at the end of the year?  Will my business do better?  Will I have enough extra cash to go on vacation?

Here's the thing (I've said it before and I'll say it again):  if you don't have a healthy environment, the economy is going to be irrelevant.  If you don't take care of your mentally and physically ill, your youth, your elderly, then the economy is only going to be relevant for a small portion of society.  If you don't have health care for all, then the economy again is only relevant for a small group of people (don't get my point, well, if the poor have to pay for their own health care, then they don't have money for anything else and will be in debt for life if something expensive happens - then the only way they are actually part of the economy is by paying every cent they can to the health care system.  Which benefits the wealthy in the end, but puts a large number of people in the poor house and not contributing to the rest of the economy). 

Let's look at it this way - if you have a swimming pool full of water (debt) that needs to be emptied, does it make more sense to have everyone using teaspoons to empty it, while it keeps filling up and the rich go swimming?  Or does it make sense for the poor to use teaspoons, the middle class to use cups and the weathy to use buckets (in a more socialist society where everyone pays their fair share in taxes), and get the thing emptied so everyone can go swimming in the clean lake? 

We should control our spending (as a nation), reduce our expectation of the standard of living (do we all need larger houses, 2 cars, 2 people working), start to slow down and enjoy life, instead of racing through life trying to make more and more money and in the process damaging our environment and our fellow human beings. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.