Published: Tuesday, Dec. 11 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
A good and sensible opinion piece. Thank you, Mr. Samuelson.
The young must be content with their situation. They just voted for four more
KDave,Yes they did.
KDave,A vote for Romney-Ryan would have been a major setback to the
young. The R-R dedication to trickle-down economics would have simply shifted
more wealth to the top and made the imbalance even greater.Take a
look at the most recent column by Paul Krugman. He explains briefly why the old
contest between capital and labor is becoming relevant once again.
This generation is about to learn the hard truth that not only are they expected
to take care of themselves but also the retired baby-boomer generation that
didn't have enough kids to sustain the Social Security and Medicare plans
they never supported restructuring. How can you have kids when you are also
expected to support a few unrelated geezers in a nursing home? It's a
brave new world with upside down family trees- let's see how it works out.
Not well I suspect.
Ross Perot stated the obvious over 20 years ago, NAFTA would cost the US jobs.
It has. If you supported NAFTA and other poorly thought out free trade
agreements you should not be surprised. And now you have the gall to
complain and say the young voted for 4 more years? If you are here on this forum
to spread lies you should really be ashamed of yourselves.
The young, the middle aged, the young: we're all in this together and need
to unite to obtain smaller, responsible, constitutional government.
Correction:I should have typed that young, old and middle-aged would
all benefit from smaller government, operating within constitutional limits. As
Reagan said: Government is not the solution; government is the problem. There
are those who would divide us all up: male and female, old and young, black and
white, bond and free (employee and employer). Unity accomplishes great things.
Apparently the author of this article didn't read the professor Davis
article above. He claims things are not really worse. ....and who
wouldn't be in favor of free, fair and open trade? A leftist nut of course,
who thinks he can live in his protectionist state while the world passes him by.
That is the ideal that has labor unions signing their own death certificates
right now. Their protectionist principles are leaving them without jobs. Perot
was not against free trade, he was against the hidden agendas within free trade
agreements, that actually prevented free trade!
Screwdriver:It is funny how we laughed at Perot and his charts but
if I remember rightly, generally speaking, everything he said about NAFTA,
Medicare and Social Security has come to fruition. The American public focused
on the messenger and hence he couldn't win, but his message was dead set
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments