4
Letters: Cutting the deficit, jerkwads and swearing
Letters in a computer with red mailbox flag
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: You hear what we have to say every day, so now it's your turn. A lot of you wrote about our interview with economic historian Niall Ferguson. He got all doom and gloom on us on our budget problems. He said tax cuts and too much spending are to blame.
Charlene Owens of Poolesville, Maryland thought we missed a pretty big point.
Charlene Owens: Why does Mr. Ferguson want to see a deficit reduction plan that cuts so-called "entitlements," but he doesn't mention cutting our military budget. That's the largest piece of our budget pie and it's overloaded with waste and gimmes for contractors. Why don't we take a look at that before talking about cutting entitlements, which citizens are entitled to because they pay into them specifically.
We missed something on the broadcast yesterday. In our story about the business of moderating the comments people leave on websites, we talked about the "Greater Internet Jerkwad Theory."
Eva Galperin: The theory posits that the combination of a perfectly normal human being, total anonymity and an audience, will result in a cesspit.
We should have given the gang at the online comic Penny Arcade a nod for that one. We didn't, and I suppose that makes us the jerkwads, right?
We reported last week on how marketing companies mine our personal data for clues as to what we buy and how they break us into consumer clusters. Our very own Stacey Vanek Smith was a savvy single, if you recall. A lot of you wanted to know what cluster you fit into. Just to remind you, you can find that on our webpage.
Back to naughty words now. Goldman Sachs outlawed swearing in company e-mail this past week. We got to wondering why we swear on the job at all, seeing as how it can only get you into trouble. One theory from our interview was that cussing builds camaraderie.
Ann Bragonje of Henderson, Nevada thought that was a load of... Well, she disagrees.
Ann Bragonje: How in the world does swearing develop a sense of camaraderie in the workplace? More like fear or disrespect among co-workers. Whatever happened to having a vocabulary and being able to communicate in an effective manner with people rather than using insulting and disrespectful language?
Bill Kraig of Fargo, North Dakota wrote to say that for him, it goes beyond cameraderie. "Your guest, he wrote, "neglected to mention one important thing. All of us who still have jobs now work harder and longer hours for less pay, so swearing is about the only thing left that can help us cope with those..." bad times.
That was my euphemism there. If you think one of our stories was crummy, or you thought what you heard was just bleepin' great write to us at Marketplace.org.
Social Security may be an entitlement, it may certainly be a "transfer" program, but it has been a darn successful one, and I just started mine. I am 65 and started paying in at 13. So, why is Social Security the only thing we hear about when the deficit reduction comes up. I am so sick to death of all those clamoring about those on the bottom of the ladder getting something for nothing. I think there are plenty in the middle and certainly at the top of the ladder getting a whole lot of something for nothing, on the back of the taxpayer. Think Xe,aka Blackwater, or KBR, or any number of oil and gas companies who receive tremendous tax breaks for what? Think of all those contractors with the Dept of Defense, the CIA, the NSA. Even Secty Gates admits he has no idea who all of them are who have contracts with his own office at DOD.
Come on, there is lots of waste, but there are lots of people on the gravy train other than Food Stamp recipients and old folks in nursing homes on Medicaid. What kind of society do we really want to be?
"...before talking about cutting entitlements, which citizens are entitled to because they pay into them specifically."
Charlene Owens has a point, that all govt. spending, including defense, must be on the table for fiscal responsibility. However, she is mistaken when she discusses "entitlements". It is a political word, not reflective of what is really going on: these programs are, usually, a transfer from one group of citizens (mostly taxpayers) to another group of citizens (mostly non-taxpayers). In some cases, it's a mistake to think that the recipients paid for them.
Speaking of missing a pretty big point, apparently Kai Ryssdal (or whoever picked from the mailbag) missed the main point as well. That point was cleverly hidden in the title of the interview "U.S. debt not sustainable." Can we at least agree there's a problem here before we start bickering about possible courses of action to address the problem (especially courses that were NOT mentioned during the interview)?
By the way, we don't just need a "deficit reduction plan," we need a viable plan to pay off our debt. Despite our desire (dare I say "sense of entitlement") for a continuous stream of something-for-nothing, math still rules.
