by Steve James on Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:20 pm
It is irrelevant whether I jumped to any conclusion. I asked for your opinion of his point. If you agree with it in part or whole, just explain why you do. Specifically, why the one sacrificed for the economy shouldn't be you. And, again, that is something that could be argued rationally, and is done in triage all the time. My point was that his, and your, rationalization was a matter of saving the economy. I mean, c'mon, that's the argument slaveholders used to justify keeping the institution. Whenever there is a conflict between what is moral and what is profitable, the US leans toward the profit.
Every social program that exists is criticized because we supposedly can't afford them. Yet, as you point out elsewhere, the US suddenly has 2 trillion dollars to give away. Even if they're just printing it out, the point is that it appeared. If it was there, it was taxpayer money anyway --unless it was borrowed. That's okay, even if it's strangely socialist. Saying that we can afford to lose people is another thing. And, anyway, to get the economy started he is willing to gamble with citizen's lives. I don't think it's worth it. Nothing personal.
How about this. The poverty threshold in the US is about 25k for a family of four. After this is all over, will they get continued support? Should more money go to all the people or just to employees who were laid of? Should the country continue to offer free testing for the flu, etc.? I think that many of those people are already forgotten and are considered expendable. This virus, however, doesn't respect class. So, its victims generally can't be ignored.
Last edited by
Steve James on Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."