This is why I hate Beto:

Beto O’Rourke says instead of walls or putting kids in cages, the U.S. needs to invest in “solutions in Central America to ensure that no family has to make that 2,000 mile journey because they’re fleeing the deadliest countries on the face of the planet”

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 9, 2019

What a pompous, vacuous, stupid douche. But he isn’t a solitary idiot ranting alone in a cave. The most maddening thing about progressivism today is the iron-clad belief that everything can be achieved by “investing in solutions.” Throw money at it and it will go away! If it doesn’t go away, throw more money at it. Hearing any leftist speak about anything is like listening to an endless replay of Kevin O’Leary’s “Money! Maaaah-naaaaay! I want more MONEY!”

To people like Beto, human beings are like robots activated by coins. If they don’t do what you want, it’s because you didn’t deposit the right amount of coins.

16 thoughts on “Money”

  1. I’ve been thinking about the “throw money at it” & the “offer free things” philosophies recently, and I’ve come to the conclusion that we do have to do more of this now as opposed to fifty, sixty, seventy years ago. People’s wages, especially if you’re part of the so-called “working class,” clearly don’t go as far as they used to. Health care and a college education are so much more expensive these days, and the gap between the rich vs. the middle and working classes is growing exponentially, so people who are struggling really need some free stuff to help them out, especially free (or at least debt-free) college and a free, single-payer health care system. Parents shouldn’t have to work more than one job and still struggle to pay their bills. I reminded of that time when George W. Bush was on stage with some voters, and one of them told him that she was working three jobs to support her family. His response was something like, “Wow! That’s great! You’re a good role model for Americans.” Or something along those lines.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m passionately in favor of welfare protections. Welfare is crucial in a civilized society. But it doesn’t solve every problem. In Central America, for instance, foreign aid just gets stolen by corrupt politicians.

      Like that Labour lady I quoted recently said, “Poor kids perform worse academically because they are hungry.” It’s crazy. Of course, no kid should be hungry in a civilized society. I’m all for making sure that kids don’t go hungry. But that won’t eliminate the difference in academic outcomes.

      Or in higher education. Our graduation rates are pathetic. So let’s buy more technology! Smart classroom! A tablet for everybody! More gadgets! We buy all this crap, and the graduation rates still stay exactly where they were before. So we form committees to research better gadgets and software we can buy. And the results are the same.


      1. We need to spend money on the right things in higher ed. Students do not need more gadgets and technology.

        Of course, students are incredibly underprepared for college, and this affects graduation rates. But where I teach, so many students work part time or full time to make money for books, part of their tuition, and other expenses, and I think that this work takes a lot of time away from their studies. If we could make college free or debt free, then students wouldn’t have to work and they could really be full time students and focus solely on their studies as their only job. This wouldn’t solve all problems with higher ed, there will still be students who are not fully motivated to study and learn, but it’s good step in the right direction, I think.


        1. If students don’t have jobs, they’ll not spend the time studying. They’d spend it on their phones and tablets. The last thing I want to do is teach students who don’t have jobs. They’d never show up for class at all! And the already high anxiety rates would become unmanageable.


  2. Graduation rates, however, would very likely improve if students came in better prepared from K-12 and had more time and peace of mind to study. This would take money but the gadget companies wouldn’t be as enriched. Fix it with gadgets is the right wing enthusiasm usually, at least in my experience


    1. Of course, it would help if students came to us prepared. But it’s hardly the lack of money that sends them to us with low reading skills, almost no writing skills, and no understanding of geography or history. My 3-year-old knows her continents better than they do! And it didn’t take money to teach her.


      1. I got much more out of school than kids do here / now and this had a great deal to do with funding. We had a library at my elementary school, for instance, and textbooks and school supplies that you did not have to buy, and teachers with good degrees and decent salaries, small classes, equipment to play outside, field trips. Now, here, a lot of charter schools are canned curricula on line and there is this one that has the kids watch lectures on DVDs.


      2. My 3-year-old knows her continents better than they do!

        I’ve heard this about geography for years and I wonder when it started. In 6th and 7th grade we had tests where we were given maps of Europe, Africa & etc. with the borders drawn but no names, and we had to write in the names of the countries. I wonder when that stopped.


  3. And then too, US policy esp. throughout 20th C has done much to make Central Am what it is and it has meant spending money in a certain way to get a certain kind of return. We might consider reevaluating.

    Related — (not a new article) — what I have been saying, lack of migrant labor will not be made up for with nice jobs for Americans, but with prison labor:


    1. What original sin are Americans washing off in the FSU countries with their stupid money? They thwart every attempt to build something good with their endless handouts. Both Ukrainian revolutions failed because of this money. I’m not taking the blame off Ukrainian politicians for being corrupt shits and being seduced by easy money. But I so wish Americans would just go away and forget we exist.


      1. In C.A. lots of intervention for the sake of lots of extraction and dubious geopolitics. This costs money. It’s not “washing off original sin” (I have no idea where you get that idea) — and isn’t pious or charitable. I also doubt anything US is doing in FSU is intended to further the goals of anyone / anything but what the US, or the people in charge of it, consider to be in their interests


        1. “In C.A. lots of intervention for the sake of lots of extraction and dubious geopolitics”

          Absolutely, and again and again and again US governments sided with murderous regimes against legitimate popular uprisings…. but the answer to solving that doesn’t lie in allowing mass immigration. The answer to the problems of malignant intervention is never more intervention – in Central America (and the Middle East) people have to solve their own problems which means not letting awful governments offshore their problem populations (and not protecting the scummy elites in C.A.)


          1. I didn’t say it was either. I did say that investing in doing something differently, so that you don’t have people needing to flee, might be a good idea. If we had left Arbenz alone, for instance. Now that might have meant sacrificing something, whatever it was we hoped to get or did get. But the US being an empire, it does what it does


      2. ” Both Ukrainian revolutions failed because of this money”

        Which means the money worked! You’ve written before that Putin has no long term overarching goal in the EU besides disorder and chaos…..
        US involvement in Ukraine is basically the same thing. Every US action is meant to increase disorder and help keep Ukraine poor and in desperate straits. US involvement in any Ukrainian revolution will have the specific goal of making it fail.
        The EU (in general) has better intentions (in the abstract) but has became so slow and awkward that it can’t do much (which is probably for the best).


        1. \ Every US action is meant to increase disorder and help keep Ukraine poor and in desperate straits. US involvement in any Ukrainian revolution will have the specific goal of making it fail.

          What good does it do to US, especially in the long term? Why do you think that?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.