Hey America, You Owe New York! - corrected version

rhisiart at earthlink.net rhisiart at earthlink.net
Wed Nov 21 16:07:57 PST 2001


At 12:37 PM 11/21/2001, you wrote:
>Not actually a New Yorker (just recent migrant to New Jersey), but its
>neither humility nor arrogance to note that the Bush states have, while
>pounding their chests about "welfare cheats" have been living off the taxes
>of states like California and New York, who have been drained of resources
>they needed to provide jobs and health care for their own residents.

this is quite correct. i'm from california. however, i don't see it as anyone "living off" our economic prosperity. people in need should have what they need from the richest, most arrogant, country in the world. which state, and which social class, it comes from is irrelevant. anyone who pays taxes assuming they'll get something back is kidding themselves.

what has "drained" calif of resources (which isn't not an accurate way of putting it because calif is far from drained) is private industry and privatization. not taxes. for example, our governor is handing billions of dollars to energy companies (with the support of our congress) who are major donors to his campaign fund, not because it serves the state but because it serves corporate interests. currently, calif is facing a budget deficit of over a billion, when a year ago we had a surplus of a few billion. not due to taxes going to other states. due to the way the state govt wastes that hard earned money.

i'd say arrogance, no humility and smug self approval. no one "owes" anyone anything. what does new york expect the shrub group to do about it? is the article just hot air? or does someone in NY stupid enough to expect the shrubs to stop being shrubs? does NY truly believe the shrub group cares about the people of the US?

isn't ever state a shrub state now that his approval ratings are 90 percent or thereabouts?


>As for reparations, I'm all for it in the collective sense promoted by
>spending on education, health care and jobs. Politically, while
>recognizing the particular debt owed to African-Americans, it makes more
>sense in building majorities to target that spending for everyone needing
>economic help.
>
>-- Nathan

if the US reformed its tax structure, assuming that all the multinationals wouldn't leave the country if they had to pay taxes, meeting the needs of the needy, of health care, education, etc., would be economically feasible.

politically, the debt owed african americans is no different from the debt owed japanese americans after WW II, only greater. economically, would your family like to work a few generations for only the most meager room and board (provided you never express yourselves), the legal status of livestock, the "security" of knowing you have no rights and are regarded by the dominant culture as subhuman, and etc?

i don't see any mechanism in place to assure that collective spending on education, health care and jobs will reach anywhere near a majority of people in need. perhaps we're not talking about the same USA.

R



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list