The Racist Bigots are Spreading! Or... not! Population policy 'risks wealth' in Oz

I envy the Australians, and many other nations, where the concept of a population policy is discussed, while we here in the United States are berated, accused of being racists, xenophobes, bigots, anti-Hispanic, anti-poor, anti-Mexican, etc., etc., with complete seriousness, when we are trying to address real issues and real solutions to border control, immigration policy, illegal border-crossings, and so-called illegal immigrants (they used to be called illegal aliens).

 

Epic failure on the part of America's left, liberals, the sway of the leading Democrats, for their lack of foresight in the thoroughly unreasonable assaults on the right, the conservatives, Republicans, the safe-borders and anti-illegal immigration proponents. (Note: anit-illegals are not, by definition, anti-human beings, despite what is so often repeated by the crass left, all the way to the top.)

 

In Australia, the fairly laid-back, neighborly nation that is not exactly assaulted for it's ingrained bigotry (not since the days of the Lost Generation, at least), they actually can have a discussion about population issues versus economic issues. Where is our discussion that doesn't parse it on such a horrendously juvenile level as calling others racists or bigots, and not just knee-jerk activists, but actual LEADERS?

 

 

Population policy 'risks wealth'

LINK: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budgets/population-policy-risks-wealth/story-fn8gf1nz-1226055622972

AUSTRALIA'S long-term prosperity is threatened by the Gillard government's failure to set a viable population policy, the nation's peak property body has warned.

But the nation's first population strategy, released by the government yesterday, won praise from low-population advocate Bob Carr for abandoning a "big Australia" approach.

Property Council of Australia chief executive Peter Verwer said the new strategy, Sustainable Australia, Sustainable Communities, was "political" in nature, and contained little more than "motherhood statements, previously announced initiatives and ongoing government programs".

"This is not a detailed plan for managing population growth and to describe it as a policy or a strategy would be stretching credibility," Mr Verwer said."

"We need to grow our population if we are to meet critical skills shortages and provide for an ageing population, which needs taxation revenue to fund vital services," he said. (More story)

 

 

- jR

 

(aka AirFarceOne on Twitter)

The Unwisdom of Elites - NYTimes.com

The former economist, PAUL KRUGMAN, is so good at getting so many things half correct. Here's an example, from May 9, 2011, column. All-too-predictably, he blames the Republicans for problems.

 

The Unwisdom of Elites

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html

 

 

...These days Americans get constant lectures about the need to reduce the budget deficit. That focus in itself represents distorted priorities, since our immediate concern should be job creation. But suppose we restrict ourselves to talking about the deficit, and ask: What happened to the budget surplus the federal government had in 2000?

The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. Second, there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional $1.1 trillion or so. And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a collapse in revenue and to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs.

So who was responsible for these budget busters? It wasn't the man in the street.

President George W. Bush cut taxes in the service of his party's ideology, not in response to a groundswell of popular demand — and the bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority.

Similarly, Mr. Bush chose to invade Iraq because that was something he and his advisers wanted to do, not because Americans were clamoring for war against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, it took a highly deceptive sales campaign to get Americans to support the invasion, and even so, voters were never as solidly behind the war as America's political and pundit elite.

Finally, the Great Recession was brought on by a runaway financial sector, empowered by reckless deregulation. And who was responsible for that deregulation? Powerful people in Washington with close ties to the financial industry, that's who. Let me give a particular shout-out to Alan Greenspan, who played a crucial role both in financial deregulation and in the passage of the Bush tax cuts — and who is now, of course, among those hectoring us about the deficit.

So it was the bad judgment of the elite, not the greediness of the common man, that caused America's deficit. And much the same is true of the European crisis....

He forgot the other half of the problem, which includes his friends Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton (yes, even though he and the GOP Congress created a surplus), and so many others who touted the goodness of such things as giving loans to the underprivileged, for homes they could not afford. And other things.

-jR