...is that ideologues who are largely immune for the financial pain of their constituents held the national economy hostage so they could cut spending at precisely the time that we need to infuse the economy with cash and new jobs.
Basically, the argument goes: "If you want to avoid a monumental economic disaster, you must agree to compound our problems and more firmly commit to failed policies."
About Me
- Freeman
- Matthew Freeman is a Brooklyn based playwright with a BFA from Emerson College. His plays include THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR, REASONS FOR MOVING, THE GREAT ESCAPE, THE AMERICANS, THE WHITE SWALLOW, AN INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR, THE MOST WONDERFUL LOVE, WHEN IS A CLOCK, GLEE CLUB, THAT OLD SOFT SHOE and BRANDYWINE DISTILLERY FIRE. He served as Assistant Producer and Senior Writer for the live webcast from Times Square on New Year's Eve 2010-2012. As a freelance writer, he has contributed to Gamespy, Premiere, Complex Magazine, Maxim Online, and MTV Magazine. His plays have been published by Playscripts, Inc., New York Theatre Experience, and Samuel French.
2 comments:
I do not think that he is in any way the worst actor here, but it is worth saying that Obama embraced the very ideas you're talking about prior to entering the debt ceiling negotiations. He-- on this issue-- isn't much better than the opposition. Other issues, yes. This one, no. I think the great mystery of the obama presidency is how a neo-keynsian went in for all this austerity garbage.
I know this is a sticking point for you and I've heard you say it a few times on the interwebs. My guess is that he probably both sees some logic in budget cuts (I don't but he may) and also that there is simply nothing he can accomplish with the makeup of Congress without finding a way to get votes from people whose only, only, only issue is strangle government.
Post a Comment