I.M.O. the U.S. has a history of bailing out the rich in recent years more so than the poor. The poor would benefit most from a second stimulus check thus it has a low priority to politicians that are millionaires and billionaires and entirely sold out to the Federal purpose of concentrating wealth.
For some reason I believe that the Federal Government should be fair and balanced in giving free money away to citizens and not just work to benefit the well to do and those that already have money, or had it over history. Trillions of zero interest loans have gone to rich banks, and corporations like Chrysler and GM and numerous other businesses have been bailed out by the government. I am more for letting troubled businesses bite it when they fall on hard times and instead support the process of getting basic jobs and income for all citizens from the bottom up. Those businesses that are failing should just crash and burn in the free market.
I feel that way about federal programs to build new homes for Americans that lose their homes to hurricanes and tornadoes, forest fires and so forth. There are homeless Americans the country doesn’t care about at all. Just because people have become accustomed to driving a nice car and living in a nice home I know of no just reason why the government should replace those after a natural disaster. What happened to the idea of risk? Why should the government always prop up the prosperous when they have hard times as if they were a royal class entitled to a certain standard of living while the poor and lower middle class can eat it?
I believe that the poor and middle class as well as other inventive individuals can create new businesses when the field is leveled by natural disaster and pandemics if the government does not leap in to restore them with grants as if the Bourbon restoration was the better example of political conduct and if the poor. lower middle class and unfinanced competitors to the established have equal amounts of free federal cash.
No comments:
Post a Comment