Walking the streets of Boston and now the streets of New York City I see a still emerging trend which I was sure would have faded out by now, but, to my dismay, has not. This long-lasting trend is the donning of the keffiyeh [kah-fee-yah], which is the traditional checkered scarf worn by men in the Middle East. The red and white keffiyeh is mostly shown being worn by Saudi men, while the black and white keffiyeh is worn by men in most parts of the Middle East and has become a symbol of Palestinian unity and, in many ways, a statement of one's political stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict:
"Traditionally worn by Palestinian peasants, the keffiyeh became a symbol of Palestinian nationalism during the Arab Revolt of the 1930s. Its prominence increased in the 1960 with the beginning of the Palestinian resistance movement and its adoption by Arafat...
Another Palestinian figure associated with the keffiyeh is Leila Khaled, a female member of the armed wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Several photographs of Khaled circulated in the Western newspapers after the hijacking of TWA Flight 840 and the Dawson’s Field hijackings. These often included Khaled wearing a keffiyeh in the style of a Muslim woman’s hijab, wrapped around the head and shoulders. This was unusual, as the keffiyeh is associated with Arab masculinity, and many believe this to be something of a fashion statement by Khaled, denoting her equality with men in the Palestinian armed struggle."
The surging popularity of the keffiyeh, worn in the traditional style of Middle Eastern men, began with North-eastern urban hipsters and has now spread to various demographics and has picked up some new shades. I now see everyone wearing keffiyehs--women in business suits on the subway, stylish 20 or 30-somethings on 5th Ave., preps in Irish pubs--it seems I can't escape them. The style of the keffiyeh has also changed to fit its growing popularity...it has been shortened to be better styled as an accessory rather than an actual scarf (for the warmer climate) and now comes in all colors and several different prints. I have seen keffiyehs with flowers on them, seen them in orange, hot pink, red (red and black, unlike the traditional red and white keffiyehs of the Middle East), green, blue. I stopped in my tracks as I walked up 31st Ave. towards 5th Ave. and witnessed keffiyehs of all colors displayed in the window of a small clothing shop. Attending the recent Common/N.E.R.D. show in New York was like attending a who's-who of keffiyehs---just about everyone was wearing one. And this new fashion style is not gender or race biased either. Men wear them, women wear them, black, white, asian, hispanic..I've seen it all at this point.
I admit that I own a keffiyeh and I do wear mine as a scarf when it's cold. But mine is the traditional, long, black and white keffiyeh and my reasoning for wearing it is also much different than those walking the streets of Boston and New York. I bought my keffiyeh in Amsterdam, a place where I was amazed to find them being sold on almost every street in Arab or Turkish owned shops.
Now every time I see someone sporting a keffiyeh, I get a tiny pang of anger inside. Turning the keffiyeh into the hottest new trend, in my opinion, has striped it of all its cultural and political meaning and made it nothing but a cute accessory. The Palestinian people do not have much to fight with, and the wearing of this scarf was one of the peaceful tactics employed for their struggle. How dare fashion take something that makes (or made) such a strong statement and means so much to people that most of those living in northeast America know nothing about and turn it into such a spectacle? What's next, fashionable hijabs? Trendy yarmulkes? Hip turbans?
Now I understand that fashion occasionally needs to reach into far depths to pull out something new and edgy (and often down-right ridiculous) for the urban population to "express themselves" with, hence the passing 'urban cowboy' trend. Overalls shouldn't be worn by anyone over 5, I say, but fashion says otherwise and all I can do is sit back and silently judge those giving into the trend-pressure. But I can say this openly: Fashion should stay out of politics! Unless you are wearing an Obama tee-shirt or in some other way expressing your own personal political views, leave the political stylings of people you know nothing about alone! Unless you are willing and ready to say that you support the Palestinian cause and wish to express your solidarity with the Palestinian people, put your keffiyeh away.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
From the bottom up or the top down?
Watching the debate last night, viewers were reminded once again of McCain's "hero", Ronald Reagan. Ok, whatever, John! Doesn't Reaganomics equal trickle-down economic theory? The theory that if those at the top's wallets are full, money will naturally spill out from them to the rest of the population. Trickle down economy theory is the opposite of the ground-up approach, in which the economy is stimulated from the lower levels of the economy (ie The small business owner rather than the top corporate executive) and that from there more jobs are created and, most importantly, more stability and better competition is created.
Trickle down economics has proven itself to not work. Why? Because money does not just trickle down from the pockets of greedy top level corporate executives. If the CEO of a giant corporation gets receives a $50,000 bonus, do all of that company's employees also get a bonus? No. Are all the workers receiving wages and benefits anywhere near that of top or even mid-level executives? Of course not! Now, bring in out-sourcing. If there has ever been evidence of corporate America's greed, this is it. Now we've got corporate execs. still raking in multi-million dollar paychecks, and the "excess" is tricking down to...India? Bangladesh? While outsourcing has been a great opportunity for developing nations and corporations to make more money, what about the rest of us, still looking upwards in search of a few bucks trickling our way.
Even when we look internationally, we see that trickle down does not work. Large international money lenders like the IMF, the World Bank and the US have proven this. While the World Bank has actually done some good for developing countries, the large loans made to these countries (expected to be paid back AND with interest) are usually just used to pay off debt these nations owe to other countries! It doesn't solve any problem, and if anything, just makes the situation worse for that country. In many instances, a receiving country may have access to food and health aid, but once a large loan is made to that country, the aid is discontinued. Since the loans are usually used to pay off other debt, the money is in and out of the country without a single cent trickling down, and the people who need it are now also stripped of the aid they were depending on to survive. A number of years ago, a substantial amount of money was loaned to Nigeria in order to fight AIDS. When all was said and done, only 10% of that money could be accounted for. This is another obstacle to seeing any money trickle down...on it's way down it often gets stuck in the pockets of corrupt leaders, which the developing world is full of.
So what does work? In the past few decades, a new phenomenon has sprouted all over the developing world and has proven to actually work for the people who need it the most. It's called micro-lending, micro-credit or micro-finance, depending on which you think sounds best. Micro-lending involves the setting up of small lending banks in rural parts of developing countries and gives very modest loans to the citizens of these rural areas. With these loans, villagers can begin a business of their own--opening a general store or making clothes to sell to tourists or fixing shoes. Eventually, if they are successful in their business, they pay off the loan, generate a substantial income and ultimately are able to employ other villagers and stimulate the entire economy of the village. This way, instead of waiting for the government to come bail them out, rural people are generating their own economy and, most importantly, generating their own economic independence. The one thing any nation needs to have before anything else is a stable economy. No one is going to care or fight for anything else if they can't feed, clothe and shelter themselves and their families. Once a nation's citizens can do all of these things and have become economically independent, they can then begin demanding other things, like democracy and stability in other areas of their country.
Now, how do we apply this to home, and why haven't we yet? Sure, America isn't a developing country, but I think that it has been proven by now that capitalism is not the only answer. It has had it's hey-day and we are all paying for it now. Maybe we should take a lesson from the micro-lenders and take our economy out of the hands of greedy and corrupt corporate executives and put it back into the hands of small businesses. Maybe it's time to focus on generating our economy on a more local level, stimulating dollars on a community by community basis, creating new and local jobs all over the country, rather than putting all of our eggs in one giant corporate basket.
Trickle down economics has proven itself to not work. Why? Because money does not just trickle down from the pockets of greedy top level corporate executives. If the CEO of a giant corporation gets receives a $50,000 bonus, do all of that company's employees also get a bonus? No. Are all the workers receiving wages and benefits anywhere near that of top or even mid-level executives? Of course not! Now, bring in out-sourcing. If there has ever been evidence of corporate America's greed, this is it. Now we've got corporate execs. still raking in multi-million dollar paychecks, and the "excess" is tricking down to...India? Bangladesh? While outsourcing has been a great opportunity for developing nations and corporations to make more money, what about the rest of us, still looking upwards in search of a few bucks trickling our way.
Even when we look internationally, we see that trickle down does not work. Large international money lenders like the IMF, the World Bank and the US have proven this. While the World Bank has actually done some good for developing countries, the large loans made to these countries (expected to be paid back AND with interest) are usually just used to pay off debt these nations owe to other countries! It doesn't solve any problem, and if anything, just makes the situation worse for that country. In many instances, a receiving country may have access to food and health aid, but once a large loan is made to that country, the aid is discontinued. Since the loans are usually used to pay off other debt, the money is in and out of the country without a single cent trickling down, and the people who need it are now also stripped of the aid they were depending on to survive. A number of years ago, a substantial amount of money was loaned to Nigeria in order to fight AIDS. When all was said and done, only 10% of that money could be accounted for. This is another obstacle to seeing any money trickle down...on it's way down it often gets stuck in the pockets of corrupt leaders, which the developing world is full of.
So what does work? In the past few decades, a new phenomenon has sprouted all over the developing world and has proven to actually work for the people who need it the most. It's called micro-lending, micro-credit or micro-finance, depending on which you think sounds best. Micro-lending involves the setting up of small lending banks in rural parts of developing countries and gives very modest loans to the citizens of these rural areas. With these loans, villagers can begin a business of their own--opening a general store or making clothes to sell to tourists or fixing shoes. Eventually, if they are successful in their business, they pay off the loan, generate a substantial income and ultimately are able to employ other villagers and stimulate the entire economy of the village. This way, instead of waiting for the government to come bail them out, rural people are generating their own economy and, most importantly, generating their own economic independence. The one thing any nation needs to have before anything else is a stable economy. No one is going to care or fight for anything else if they can't feed, clothe and shelter themselves and their families. Once a nation's citizens can do all of these things and have become economically independent, they can then begin demanding other things, like democracy and stability in other areas of their country.
Now, how do we apply this to home, and why haven't we yet? Sure, America isn't a developing country, but I think that it has been proven by now that capitalism is not the only answer. It has had it's hey-day and we are all paying for it now. Maybe we should take a lesson from the micro-lenders and take our economy out of the hands of greedy and corrupt corporate executives and put it back into the hands of small businesses. Maybe it's time to focus on generating our economy on a more local level, stimulating dollars on a community by community basis, creating new and local jobs all over the country, rather than putting all of our eggs in one giant corporate basket.
Round 2!!!
As the presidential campaign gets closer and closer to election day, we are seeing the candidates at their worst and their best. At this point they have clearly shown us how they are going to fight their opponent in the hopes of taking up the executive offices in January.
During last night's debate, I saw many of the same tactics McCain has used before being used again. For one, he spent most of the debate not really explaining what he would do as president, but rather what Obama hasn't done or has done wrong in the past. Watching the approval scale on the bottom of the screen (calculating the opinions of undecided Ohio voters as the candidates spoke) it was clear that Americans don't want to hear this rhetoric anymore. We're over it and we want real answers to critical questions. At this time in our nation, where the economy is falling, Wall Street is in the worst shape it's been since the Depression, we are in a multi-year/multi-country war and so many families are without health insurance...we don't want to hear about what dirt you've dug up on the other guy, we want to hear why we should vote for you and what you will do for our country as the next president.
Another tactic McCain used again, one which Palin is also using, is the "buddy" system. This is a tool also employed by Bush, contributing to his being the #1 president Americans would want to have a beer with. Both McCain and Palin have adopted this strategy of appealing to citizens' emotions, of trying to be our friends. Palin, as the winking, folksy, hot hockey-mom; McCain as the old-but-still-funny, joke-cracking "maverick". How many times last night did McCain refer to..I guess everyone, as "My Friends." (The meaning of which was very much confused when he suddenly referred to Obama as "my friend" also.) He leaned against banisters as he answered questions and seemed to make it seem like he was having a talk with his buddy, not a constituent.
Well, McCain seems like a nice guy and maybe I would like to be his friend, but in a president we need a leader, not a friend. We need someone who understands our issues and what kind of change is needed to address those issues and to lead us out of this mess we're in towards a better future. Presidents are not our friends, leaders are not our friends. They are our protectors, our inspirers, our decision-makers. That is what we need in the White House. Not another four years of "friends", like George Bush.
Polls all over the country are showing that Obama is in the lead and that, most certainly, Obama won Tuesday's debate. I guess this means that Americans are finally looking beyond the superficial elements of this campaign and looking for real answers to the most important question we, as a nation have to ask ourselves on November 4th: Who will lead us to a better tomorrow? With the looks of today, it's clear that we can no longer accept anything but honesty, integrity and true leadership.
During last night's debate, I saw many of the same tactics McCain has used before being used again. For one, he spent most of the debate not really explaining what he would do as president, but rather what Obama hasn't done or has done wrong in the past. Watching the approval scale on the bottom of the screen (calculating the opinions of undecided Ohio voters as the candidates spoke) it was clear that Americans don't want to hear this rhetoric anymore. We're over it and we want real answers to critical questions. At this time in our nation, where the economy is falling, Wall Street is in the worst shape it's been since the Depression, we are in a multi-year/multi-country war and so many families are without health insurance...we don't want to hear about what dirt you've dug up on the other guy, we want to hear why we should vote for you and what you will do for our country as the next president.
Another tactic McCain used again, one which Palin is also using, is the "buddy" system. This is a tool also employed by Bush, contributing to his being the #1 president Americans would want to have a beer with. Both McCain and Palin have adopted this strategy of appealing to citizens' emotions, of trying to be our friends. Palin, as the winking, folksy, hot hockey-mom; McCain as the old-but-still-funny, joke-cracking "maverick". How many times last night did McCain refer to..I guess everyone, as "My Friends." (The meaning of which was very much confused when he suddenly referred to Obama as "my friend" also.) He leaned against banisters as he answered questions and seemed to make it seem like he was having a talk with his buddy, not a constituent.
Well, McCain seems like a nice guy and maybe I would like to be his friend, but in a president we need a leader, not a friend. We need someone who understands our issues and what kind of change is needed to address those issues and to lead us out of this mess we're in towards a better future. Presidents are not our friends, leaders are not our friends. They are our protectors, our inspirers, our decision-makers. That is what we need in the White House. Not another four years of "friends", like George Bush.
Polls all over the country are showing that Obama is in the lead and that, most certainly, Obama won Tuesday's debate. I guess this means that Americans are finally looking beyond the superficial elements of this campaign and looking for real answers to the most important question we, as a nation have to ask ourselves on November 4th: Who will lead us to a better tomorrow? With the looks of today, it's clear that we can no longer accept anything but honesty, integrity and true leadership.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Election Anxiety
I realized this morning how serious this campaign is and how much it means to me. After not watching Sarah Palin go down in flames at the VP debate, I was haunted all night by dreams of the GOP once again winning the elections and of my country being stripped of more and more of the precious values that once made it the land of the free. I stumbled out of bed and into the livingroom where my aunt was sitting by her computer and, half asleep, asked her what the news was saying about the debate. I didn't even think about it. It was a natural reaction, a reflection of how aware I am of the implications of this election, either way it turns out. I have said many times that I will leave the country if McCain wins, and those statements are only partial jokes. I can't stand to experience another four years of everything our country has fought for and built up over centuries be completely destroyed by ideological, greedy, inexperienced "leaders".
DARE I BELIEVE OBAMA CAN WIN?
His idealism brings out the best in me – and in others. So what happens if he loses?
By Courtney E. Martin
from the October 3, 2008 edition
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - Like so many Americans, I feel as though I am holding my breath.
Could the quiet seed of joy that was planted in my heart the day I heard Barack Obama speak for the first time take root and grow without fear of the brutal storms of disappointment?
Could a leader that evokes awe in me actually win a presidential election? Could the beauty – and logic – of his words win over the majority of this country's voters? Could they see past the lies and distractions to the center of a human being who sincerely wants to invoke citizens' higher selves?
Could a system that seems so broken, so moneyed, so corrupt actually serve to help the American people elect an authentic, complex thinker? Could it be that – despite all that is wrong with the electoral process – there is enough right to allow a thoughtful candidate to get through the muck and emerge earnest and excited to lead?
Could the inspirational, not aspirational, America that I was raised to believe in – Eleanor Roosevelt with her Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Martin Luther King Jr. with his dream, and John F. Kennedy with his "ask not" encouragement – be the America that I live in?
And finally, and perhaps most profoundly, could this country reflect the best within me?
There is part of me, I admit, that is fearful and self-focused and, worst of all, cynical. She understands why people stay home from the polls. But there is another part of me that is courageous and compassionate and, best of all, idealistic. If Senator Obama is elected, I feel as though that best part of me – the best part of all of us – will be given permission to lead.
As Nov. 4 nears, I feel heavy with internal struggle and dangerous anticipation.
I have never voted for a presidential candidate who has won, much less in an election that wasn't considered potentially corrupt. I have never gone to sleep on Election Day with a sense of accomplishment, with the satisfying congruency of my values and those of the country's leader merging as one.
I have never woken up the next day without a deep, wide sadness, without a sense that my country doesn't reflect my dearest beliefs, that it actually mocks my youthful enthusiasm for the political process and commitment to following my political heart.
Now I watch Obama, a leader who articulates my own ideas and intuitions with the most eloquent grace, on the brink of a presidential miracle. His words about the critical nature of cohesive community, about injustice, about personal responsibility ring so true in my ears. But I'm scared to believe.
I don't think that Obama is a "messiah." I know that he has flaws, that he will fail in many ways, that the space between his ideals and his actions will often gape with a discomfiting hypocrisy, or at the very least, inefficiency.
But I am almost certain that he is good deep down, that he believes, as I do, that we could do better, that we could be better, that we are – when stripped of bureaucracy and alienation and skepticism – already better.
It is not his inevitable fall from grace that I fear. It is the possibility that on Nov. 4, I will find out that my acute craving for a kind and complex leader is not shared by the majority of Americans. That conclusion to this breathtaking story would tempt me, not just to be alienated from American politics, but from the American people. I fear that the worst part of me would bully the best part with cruel words: "I told you so. Hope is dangerous and naive."
But what would Obama himself say to that sentiment? I imagine he'd stay calm, in his top-of-the-lake-on-a-still-day kind of way. He'd remind me that his candidacy was never about him, but about me, about all of us. That it isn't his victory that confirms America's greatness, nor his defeat that disproves it; it's our own capacity to be resilient and committed to change every day, in all sorts of quiet, nonpresidential ways.
If Obama is elected, if I am invited to rejoice with the majority of Americans, the best part of me will have a chance to smile triumphantly at the worst.
Sometimes you believe in someone and they inspire you right back. Sometimes kindness and wisdom triumph over fear and brutality. Sometimes this country is as amazing as your wildest imagination of it.
• Courtney E. Martin is the author of "Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters" and a columnist for The American Prospect Online.
When I was growing up, being American meant something completely different than it does today. It meant that you were one of the luckiest people in the world. You had every opportunity at your fingertips because your nation provided the economy, the liberties and the security to chase your dreams, whatever they may be. And now being American feels like something I have to defend--something I have to fight to be proud of. I have been thinking a lot lately about how unfair it is to the people in my age group who have been stripped of their rights to chase their dreams and now clamor for a good paying job with health benefits. I can think of only one friend of mine who is successfully living out her dream. I have become nostalgic for a time I have never experienced. I and many people my age have had to lower our standards tremendously just to be able to get by--burdened with unbelievable debt and ever-increasing rents to live in cities that provide no available jobs that pay enough to survive except for those in restaurants or mind-numbing 9-5's that are nowhere near where our passions lie. Why can't we have the freedom of those before us to have options available...to do what we want and be properly compensated for it?
This is one of the many reasons that I am in agony over the upcoming elections--why I will not give any kudos to Sarah Palin or John McCain for anything they might do that seems positive--why I will give my time away for free to help Obama's campaign--why I leave angered comments on other blogs just to get people to read my own in the hopes that they might just agree with what I have to say about it--why I feel that I will have no choice but to leave my country if Obama does not win this election. I want to be able to stand behind my country, but the way things have gone these past eight years, I find that to be an impossible feat.
To echo my anxious hope/fearful agony over this election, I am pasting a beautifully written article by Courtney Martin. She puts my emotions in words that I cannot and has helped me accept the feelings I have toward this election and Obama:
His idealism brings out the best in me – and in others. So what happens if he loses?
By Courtney E. Martin
from the October 3, 2008 edition
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - Like so many Americans, I feel as though I am holding my breath.
Could the quiet seed of joy that was planted in my heart the day I heard Barack Obama speak for the first time take root and grow without fear of the brutal storms of disappointment?
Could a leader that evokes awe in me actually win a presidential election? Could the beauty – and logic – of his words win over the majority of this country's voters? Could they see past the lies and distractions to the center of a human being who sincerely wants to invoke citizens' higher selves?
Could a system that seems so broken, so moneyed, so corrupt actually serve to help the American people elect an authentic, complex thinker? Could it be that – despite all that is wrong with the electoral process – there is enough right to allow a thoughtful candidate to get through the muck and emerge earnest and excited to lead?
Could the inspirational, not aspirational, America that I was raised to believe in – Eleanor Roosevelt with her Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Martin Luther King Jr. with his dream, and John F. Kennedy with his "ask not" encouragement – be the America that I live in?
And finally, and perhaps most profoundly, could this country reflect the best within me?
There is part of me, I admit, that is fearful and self-focused and, worst of all, cynical. She understands why people stay home from the polls. But there is another part of me that is courageous and compassionate and, best of all, idealistic. If Senator Obama is elected, I feel as though that best part of me – the best part of all of us – will be given permission to lead.
As Nov. 4 nears, I feel heavy with internal struggle and dangerous anticipation.
I have never voted for a presidential candidate who has won, much less in an election that wasn't considered potentially corrupt. I have never gone to sleep on Election Day with a sense of accomplishment, with the satisfying congruency of my values and those of the country's leader merging as one.
I have never woken up the next day without a deep, wide sadness, without a sense that my country doesn't reflect my dearest beliefs, that it actually mocks my youthful enthusiasm for the political process and commitment to following my political heart.
Now I watch Obama, a leader who articulates my own ideas and intuitions with the most eloquent grace, on the brink of a presidential miracle. His words about the critical nature of cohesive community, about injustice, about personal responsibility ring so true in my ears. But I'm scared to believe.
I don't think that Obama is a "messiah." I know that he has flaws, that he will fail in many ways, that the space between his ideals and his actions will often gape with a discomfiting hypocrisy, or at the very least, inefficiency.
But I am almost certain that he is good deep down, that he believes, as I do, that we could do better, that we could be better, that we are – when stripped of bureaucracy and alienation and skepticism – already better.
It is not his inevitable fall from grace that I fear. It is the possibility that on Nov. 4, I will find out that my acute craving for a kind and complex leader is not shared by the majority of Americans. That conclusion to this breathtaking story would tempt me, not just to be alienated from American politics, but from the American people. I fear that the worst part of me would bully the best part with cruel words: "I told you so. Hope is dangerous and naive."
But what would Obama himself say to that sentiment? I imagine he'd stay calm, in his top-of-the-lake-on-a-still-day kind of way. He'd remind me that his candidacy was never about him, but about me, about all of us. That it isn't his victory that confirms America's greatness, nor his defeat that disproves it; it's our own capacity to be resilient and committed to change every day, in all sorts of quiet, nonpresidential ways.
If Obama is elected, if I am invited to rejoice with the majority of Americans, the best part of me will have a chance to smile triumphantly at the worst.
Sometimes you believe in someone and they inspire you right back. Sometimes kindness and wisdom triumph over fear and brutality. Sometimes this country is as amazing as your wildest imagination of it.
• Courtney E. Martin is the author of "Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters" and a columnist for The American Prospect Online.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
This pretty much says it all....
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/76085
And I quote:
"COURIC: "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
"PALIN: "That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we´re ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the-it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending have got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.""
God help us....
And I quote:
"COURIC: "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
"PALIN: "That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we´re ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the-it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending have got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.""
God help us....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)