Robert Samuelson: Why we don't prepare for the future

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Gretschman Draper, UT
    Sept. 13, 2018 6:53 a.m.

    @SC Matt
    Congratulations on possibly cracking the top 10% for net worth. You’ve worked your whole life to get there and @Marxist is ready to take your money to pay for healthcare. How does that feel?

    If “the rich” donated ALL of their money, this would pay for healthcare for a few years. What happens when their money is gone? Now who pays? Everyone will pay significantly more than they are now and you get to stand in the government line for your trouble. No thanks.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Sept. 12, 2018 7:23 a.m.

    We are Americans, we don't think long term. We don't consider the effects of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporate America possessed bulging wallets before the tax breaks.

    We don't consider the effects of spending countless billions on defense programs which we don't need and forget about the crumbling infrastructure of the country. We refuse to plan ahead for retirement with savings. In fact, most of us could not survive a crisis today.

    We can not conceive the day when we have a health crisis and the mountain of bills that will come from that and reject a comprehensive solution involving some form of universal health care. We spurn the notion that the country might one day be dominated by a collage of "minority" voters who will remember the bad old days of segregation, discrimination and anti-immigrant sloganeering.

    We can not deal with the truth of political lies and scandals in the current administration and have thus lay down the standards for the next President and Congress. Inaction has consequences, leading to the death of democracy.

    Yup, Americans are indeed short sighted.

  • a_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    Sept. 11, 2018 4:07 p.m.

    Nailed it!

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Sept. 11, 2018 1:58 p.m.

    Great editorial. The crisis of all crisis's is one where humans will be unable to address it because the solutions have long since past. That crisis will be environmental and the other crisis's that follow. When we run out of clean water, healthy air and oceans that can no longer feed the masses, human's will be fighting over limited resources at a scale never seen before. And this is not as far off as some wish to believe. Look at your grandchildren now and ask yourself will they have the same bounties and beauty we now have on the Earth?

  • SC Matt Saline, MI
    Sept. 11, 2018 12:01 p.m.


    "The top 10% of households own 75% of the wealth. Of course you conservatives think this is because they just "work harder.""

    I thought the typical liberal was fighting for the 99%, and that therefore somebody wasn't "rich" until they made it into the top 1%?

    I'm not in the top 10% for income. I'm not even in the top 20%. But I might just barely be finally cracking the top 10% for net worth, but it's not because I work harder.

    It's because I save and invest, and I'm nearing retirement age.

    And I also know that "top 10% for income" includes a bunch of two earner couples, like an engineer married to a school teacher, or a lawyer married to a nurse, or a doctor married to a plumber.

    So, when you start trying to take money from this group to pay for "free health care for all", yeah, I'm going to say all of them got where they got because of hard work.

    And a couple making $150k/year being made to pay $70k/year for somebody else's health care isn't going to work.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2018 11:23 a.m.

    @Sc Matt " Democrats want everybody to get everything, even the latest medical advancements paid for exclusively by "the rich." That's not possible. "

    Actually it is. The top 10% of households own 75% of the wealth. Of course you conservatives think this is because they just "work harder." You don't understand this system.

  • What in Tucket Provo, UT
    Sept. 11, 2018 9:24 a.m.

    We could get rid of half of the bureaucracy the so called swamp that would help reduce the deficit. If we had a post card application for Federal taxes that would save several hundred billion. Perhaps eliminate the HEW and allow states to manage their own health and education. Why should the Feds do it?
    There is a lot of sleight of hand in food stamps and welfare, maybe there are so me savings there. The president can only do so much in balancing the budget as Congress writes the bills, but if Congress cannot balance the budget then we should reduce their pay accordingly.

  • SC Matt Saline, MI
    Sept. 11, 2018 8:49 a.m.

    Mr. Samuelson is absolutely correct.

    We wait until crisis, and the legislature can't legislate.

    Oh, they can pass bills along partisan lines occasionally, but when was the last truly meaningful compromise?

    I think it's probably the welfare reform of Bill Clinton's term with the Newt Gingrich House.

    We could limit CO2 emissions right now.... if Democrats would agree to expanded use of nuclear power.

    We could fix healthcare spending right now. But we won't. Democrats want everybody to get everything, even the latest medical advancements paid for exclusively by "the rich." That's not possible. The math doesn't work. Even Sander's proposal was what, $32T over 10 years? Oh, without, of course, meaningful contributions made from anybody making less than $100k/year.

    And every time Republicans propose solutions, Democrats say "nope" and then claim that Republicans don't have a plan.

    It's kind of hard to negotiate with that tactic. Especially when it's repeated often enough that "normal" people (like those here) actually believe it's true.