- Huns (Attila)
- Greeks (Alexander the Great)
- Moguls (Genghis Khan)
- United Kingdom
- Soviet Union
- United States
The Afghans are a tough and resilient lot. And much like a boxer matched against a stronger adversary, they let the strong wear themselves out - allowing the occupiers the delusion they are inflicting and weakening their enemy. History shows that this is when occupation is at its most dangerous.
Zbigniew Brzezinski - who advised many US presidents, helped promulgate the US policy to arm the Afghan rebels against the occupying Soviets, an action whose purpose was to weaken and eventually topple the Soviet Union and the communist block.
The irony should not be lost on anyone that we are working on our 10th year of Afghan occupation, and that many of our economic woes can be directly tied to this and the Iraq wars.
In my opinion, our lame congressional leaders (and yes, president), need to get this country out of these occupations as the primary means of getting towards a balanced budget. It is tiresome to see blowhards cut off unemployment, try to curtail benefits and help during arguably the worst economic situation since the great depression. They parrot the same lines used by Hoover - and we all know how well he is remembered.
History grade for today's government: F
3 comments:
Wow, I agree with you! We definitely should get out of Afghanistan (and Iraq) -- both are simply wars that we cannot win (nor have we or could we define winning). However, in reading the book that Aunt Virginia got for me last year -- "Three Cups of Tea", I must say that a small amount of money spent doing the "right" things, like building schools, is going to be money well spent.
But now on the unemployment front, I need to differ a bit. If we could offer an incentive for people to work and get some income (without destroying the unemployment compensation totally), then I would have less of a problem. The main problem occurs when people that really do NOT want to work conntinue to collect unemployment as long as they can -- and yes, Tom, it does happen, more often than I care to admit. We have had in the neighborhood of 25 people that we have hired that simply do not show up when they are supposed to because Congress has just extended their unemployment benefits (this is a regular occurrence these days). So, what ends up happening is that we now look and see if they have been unemployed for more than a few months and if so, we do not bother to offer them the job. We are not alone -- this is now the norm across most industries, which is why they say that the longer one is unemployed, the less likely they are to EVER find a job! One thinks that we are doing them a favor, but unfortunately, we are not. Not after 6 months or so. If you were to look at the statistics as to who collects unemployment, you would see an awful lot of repeat offenders -- people that work for a few weeks and then stop showing up cause it would be easier to collect unemployment. These are some of the same people that have calculated the exact number of hours they need to work to collect the maximum amount of earned income credit. Tom they are gaming the system just as are the high income earners that find tax shelters -- but gaming it they are. We have a few hundred people offer us there services each year for cash payment so that the income is not reported cause it would impact their (1) unemployment, (2) SSI Disability, or (3) VA disability.
Overall, my big problem is that I think that people that collect unemployment for close to 2 years will never again find a job. And unfortunately for them, statistics bear me out on this one.
I do not have the ANSWERS to these problems. If I did I would be working for the government.
I understand your concern on unemployment. I am sure there are too many people who abuse the system.
BUT, the reality is that right now, there are just not enough jobs on hand to get unemployment to a supportable number. That means that many more people are struggling when they have no option to earn an income with a traditional job.
Statisticas aside, you and I are are living in a historical time - not seen in our lifetimes. Unprecented problems demand unprecedented solutions. I would be loathe to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The words I have heard from the conservative in congress is not that they think the system is being abused, but that they don't want to spend the money and go further in debt. It is only on that point that I am challenging them. Everyone has sacred cows, and sadly both Obama and congress place the wars in that column.
Actually I do agree with you -- lots and lots of people cannot find jobs, cause there are no jobs. However, you do not want to create a "new" dependent class of people that decide that as long as they decide not to work the government should pay them! Maybe the solution would be for the government to pay them to do a job -- in other words, you are already paying them, now find a job they can do -- pick up trash, data entry, type books for the blind, volunteer work, meals for elderly, clean up at the coast, assemble packages for the veterans, volunteer at schools, etc. This might accomplish 2 things -- it would make people feel like useful members of society and it would accomplish tasks that need doing. I guess the problem here is that the bureaucracy would get in the way - e.g., the Dept of Labor, etc.
I think that FDR had the right idea -- we need to get people working. We are laying out the money, lets get something for it...
Post a Comment