VHeadline commentarist Elio Cequea writes: On the domestic (USA) front, this is about the collapse of the financial system. Everyone recognizes that the root cause of the problem is/was home loan payments in default. However, everyone has talked about bailing out the lenders ... NOT the borrowers!
Why is it that giving lenders a US$700 billion bail-out (without interest) is better than giving it to regular people at a very low interest rate?
If they can pay off their loans, that will keep the system moving, right?
Alright! I see. It's a matter of ideology! The first measure is "popular"; the second is "populist" ... but, I still do NOT understand why we should give a banker $100 so that we can borrow $80 and pay him $100. Beats the hell outta me!
About health care, some people believe that limiting the liability to medical malpractice lawsuits helps to reduce the cost of medical care. Has it ever occurred to anybody to reduce the number of "malpractices" instead?
How about socializing "preventive" medicine? It's cheap, practical and effective ... except for the insurance companies, it would save a lot of money for everyone ... your call…
About the war against terrorism … according to the FBI, terrorism is defined as "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives."
This definition includes three elements, according to the FBI:
(1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force.
(2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce.
- (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives.
With regards to Iraq, president Bush has said that the American lives that have been lost are worth the trouble. Would you say the same thing to the families of the thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been wounded or killed? How has it been worthy for them?
Last, but not least, Iraq said it did NOT have WMD; the United States attacked to "disarm" it ... on the other hand, North Korea said that they have WMD; the US did nothing about it. In other words, the country that did not have weapons was attacked. The country that did have them was not.
Is there any possibility that Iraq was actually attacked precisely because it DID NOT have WMD? I mean, besides the "classified" reasons…
By the way, Iran is saying that they want nuclear energy for "civilian use" ... YOU are saying that they are "pursuing nuclear weapons."
I certainly understand that classified information and intelligence should be concealed from the general public ... this time though, before you do anything crazy, please make sure that whatever you are being told is not another one of those intelligence failures.
I mean, if ever there was one…
Elio Cequea
Feico57@att.net
ecequea@gmail.com
Venezuela is facing the most difficult period of its history with honest reporters crippled by sectarianism on top of rampant corruption within the administration and beyond, aided and abetted by criminal forces in the US and Spanish governments which cannot accept the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people to decide over their own future.
HELP US TO KEEP BRINGING YOU THE TRUTHhttp://tinyurl.com/n4fg
No comments:
Post a Comment