Jonathan Chait is against Bush's "ownership society". Surprises me.

[madfloridian]

Isn't he usually for anything Bush wants?

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040913&s=chait091304

BUSH'S SCHEMES TO FLEECE THE POOR.
Up and Away
by Jonathan Chait
SNIP..."One of the many, many problems with the Bush administration is that its slogans are crafted by powerful and highly competent wordsmiths and strategists, such as Michael Gerson and Karen Hughes, while its domestic polices are crafted by anonymous nobodies like, uh ... say, who is in charge of domestic policy these days, anyway? Thus, Bush frequently finds himself making eloquent pronouncements whose policy ballast is formulated off-the-cuff and discarded just as easily. Early this year, the White House announced a great civilizational commitment to landing on Mars, apparently without consulting any scientists first. Bush declared, "We will build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon, and to prepare for new journeys to the worlds beyond our own." Or not. Bush failed to mention the proposal in his State of the Union address six days later....."

Take time to read his explanation of the ownership society. Pretty good.

SNIP...."It's tempting to conclude that the "ownership society" won't actually come to pass if Bush is reelected--that it's merely rhetoric generated by campaign strategists concerned that the president lacks a second-term agenda. And that might be. But it's important to remember that Bush used the 2000 and 2002 elections to spur his redistributionary agenda, even though the Republicans won both times in spite of, not because of, his economic proposals. Right now Bush faces strong public opposition to his economic record and has avoided spelling out the details of his plans. If he wins, it won't be on the strength of the "ownership society"--but that won't stop him from claiming next year that the people have demanded new upper-bracket tax cuts and privatized Social Security....."

[TheFarseer]

1. I think bush is right about this one

It's total bullshit that people can't own anything. And I think Christians should be allowed to vote too.

[madfloridian]

2. I don't think you read it correctly.

Your remarks are cryptic, as many are here lately.

[TheFarseer]

4. To be perfectly honest

I couldn't read the article because I would have had to sign up for something and I have absolutely no idea what bush is talking about with "ownership society". I suspect it has something to do with privatizing everything so corporations can more easily rip us off and send our jobs overseas, privatizing social security so that convenient economic downturns can steal all of our retirement funds for wealthy investors and did I mention rich people getting more money?

I threw in "and Christians should be allowed to vote" just to make sure people wouldn't think I was being serious.

[madfloridian]

3. This place is crazy today!

I post an intelligent article in a nice way. I get an answer that makes no sense. Maybe Frances is frying my brain, or maybe something else is going on.

Cryptic remarks, odd things said.

:shrug:

[xcmt]

5. Not cryptic.

Attempt at sarcastic humor, methinks.

[lapfog_1]

6. I happen to think "ownership society" is even more evil

than that. I think its the beginning of a conservative attempt
to only have people that own real estate be able to vote.
Renters and welfare people and others should not be part of the
electorate. And yes, I have heard this seriously discussed by
otherwise reasonable people.

[madfloridian]

7. I have heard that as well. I was surprised Chait was opposed at all.

He surprised me.

It scares me a great deal.