mired if the savior succeeds

6.29: pol/obamanomics/
we're mired if the savior succeeds:

. Obama spoke to the people about the
repub's obstructing a debt limit raise
for this strange low point involving
both a depression needing gov jobs,
and a jobs-saving bail out of many industries
who were mass-rolled by an unregulated,
shark-tanked finance sector .
. he spoke of congress as if they were
one entity -- ignoring the usa habit of
punishing one party by
voting in the opposite party .

. that opacity was to substantiate his
next point:
the debt limit is not an issue of
what to buy;
these are bills that one congress
has already agreed to pay;
and now the issue with this limit is
which bills would they prefer to pay ?

. bond interests to chinese loans?
or social security checks?
-- that kind of choice
( this example could be reminding us
that we could avoid these chinese loans
by agreeing to pay more taxes;
but there's no use asking for taxes now:
a good gov gets a surplus in good times
and these times are not those times).

. doing more to promote employment
would ease our unemployment costs
and contribute to the tax base;
conversely,
if markets become spooked by news of
a usa who suddenly won't pay its bills,
that could be very bad for jobs .

. Obama is not addressing
the main issue:
repub's are trying to force a smaller fed
by strangling its income:
both taxes and loans are being restricted
at a time of depression in which
the only savior in town would be
the gov taking out loans to create jobs .

. yet the conservatives may be
indirectly correct:
what if there really is
no savior possible because
if you dig us out of this depression
we'll only worsen the main problem:
it's a fluff economy trying to
fig-leaf an overpopulation problem .
. free parenting must think we asked for
more free employees
or revolutionaries .

pop'con strike you as
racist or commy?

. free capitalists already have
what they want,
so how could the next revolutionaries
possibly be up to some good?
. what is there to want
after you've asked for free capitalism ?
. we desperately need help with
either lowering population growth
or distributing wealth .
. lowering population growth is so taboo
that conservatives can't even mention it;
any time they want to say something like

"(conservatives will put pressure on
lowering population growth)

they instead speak about
how liberals must be kept from
distributing wealth .
. any time conservatives want to say

"(conservatives will now engage in
acts of lowering population growth)

they remind us that conservatism is about
reducing gov regulation and oversight
of occupational hazards,
foods that cause cancer and heart disease,
energy sources that raise mercury levels,
and a get-em-movin' traffic light system
that kills 40,000 per year
when they could instead use
a rotary or roundabout
see how that works
for conservatives?
spend tax dollars this year
or kill an entire usa town
every year ... .
. conservatism may also be big on wars
but they aren't the only ones;
and, being giants of high-tech,
our wars hardly put a dent
in our population growth .

. there's a popular delusion that
strong family values built this country;
in fact,
the overcrowding in our mother countries
was landing desperadoes into a huge land
with no recognizable people in it !
the luck of the pilgrim was
nothing more than instant depopulation:
resources per person were infinite;
everyone had a job packaging resources .
. but a capitalism that is run well
should run us out of all jobs
within a century (welcome home).
. the next big thing will be
floating cities on oceans,
and defending the land-based cities
with solar-energized robotics .