Economic tailspin

| 15 May 2018 | 10:06

    (In response to Luann Byrne's letter: www.spartaindependent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20180515/OPINION03/180519983/0/SEARCH)
    I was temped to write a point by point response to Luann Byrne’s conservative bullet points regarding “economic tailspin”, but I’ll just focus on two overly use conservative bullets: Her touting the merits of “conservative economic principles” and our humane treatment of immigrants.
    Her “conservative economic principals” ignore their prime components of laissez-faire and reliance on free market corrections without regulation, that took us into the great depression and more recently into an eight year recession that left the majority of us paying for the foolishness and greed of millionaires and corporations. That didn't make our lives better.
    I blame the latter on President Clinton and a Congress who rescinded our protection from financial overreach: the results were inherited by President Bush and President Obama. And now she doesn’t want to raise taxes on the culprits that hard working people bailed out, because they offer non negotiable employment with low wages for most workers–– if those jobs hadn’t yet been replaced by artificial intelligence and Chinese labor. And if she doesn’t want high taxes, get rid of corporate welfare — they don’t need it — and instead help the less fortunate regardless of station, race, or creed.
    Her wish to curtail the “economic tailspin” allegedly created by sanctuary cities would have suited my grandmother who would not have let the Irish and Italians into our country, documented or undocumented. She was quite satisfied living within the confines of her Dutch and English heritage, but she was wrong! Wrong because those earlier immigrants, regardless of how they got here and in spite of being vilified as unwashed, uneducated, alcoholic and criminals, contributed greatly to our nation’s wealth and diversity, as do the present influx of immigrants seeking a better life in a country that was once the Beacon on the Hill.
    I find Ms. Byrnes’ bullets tipped with the cure-all remedies touted repeatedly by conservatives to dupe a populace, whose critical thinking has been replaced by an emotive response to provocation, as nothing more than snake oil and eyewash. And to all my former clients, with whom I may have once argued that the consumer isn’t stupid, they have my belated apology.
    J. P. Curtis
    Sparta