Black-hearted!

Of course, we are talking about Mehmet Şimşek, Mehmet Şimşek himself; no one else.

Recently, he appeared on one of the government's leading hit-job channels and reacted to criticisms regarding the economic program they are supposedly implementing to lower inflation by saying, "What is this, they say the low-income earners are bearing the burden of the program, the workers are bearing it. No figures support this. This is completely a rote repetition. And this rote repetition is not a correct one."

Should you laugh or cry!

It is clear that the Minister either never goes out on the street; does not go to the bazaar, the market, the grocer, the corner shop; does not stop by the supermarket, does not even pass by the butcher or the greengrocer.

If he were even slightly familiar with the suffering our people endure due to inflation and the high cost of living; if he had just sat at the dinner table of a family living on minimum wage, for example, he would be ashamed to utter these sentences.

It seems he is officially the Minister of Treasury and Finance of the Republic of Turkey, but he is spiritually connected to the country on a different frequency. Otherwise, he would not make such nonsensical statements while nearly three-quarters of the population lives at the poverty line.

The government, with its policy of always looking out for itself like a carpenter's plane, has brought the country to such a point that we are all being tested by hunger.

They take from the poor and feed their cronies, sycophants, and the rabid minority that supports them. For a quarter of a century, they have not been satisfied.

Let's not beat around the bush; this is a brutal transfer of capital. To not see it, one must be either blind or have lost their mind, or more importantly, their morality.

Let's take a deep breath and continue.

From the statement made by Mehmet Şimşek, we understand that the gap between the "world of meaning" of the economic management and the kitchen of our people has widened severely.

Therefore, this debate has long since ceased to be a technical matter and has turned into a matter of conscience in the truest sense of the word.

When Mehmet Şimşek says, "No figures support the claim that low-income earners are bearing the burden of the program," he is not just defending his own economic policy; he is also drawing a thick line between himself and the reality experienced by the person on the street.

Because what we need to talk about here is not the figures that never inspire confidence, but the very life we are living!

Let's put on our reading glasses.

If the people living in a country watch officials changing price tags in markets almost every day, if retirees go to the bazaar in the evening hours to see if things get "cheaper," if people are cutting back on their food, drink, and their children's clothes just to pay their rent, then saying "the figures say otherwise" there is, to put it mildly, a detachment from reality.

This should not be viewed as a matter of perception. We are concerned with the reality itself.

The economic management says:

"We are implementing a tight monetary policy to lower inflation. This program is necessary. You will see the results."

So who is objecting?

The low-income earners, those on fixed salaries, retirees, minimum wage earners...

In other words, the majority of this country.

And their objections are very simple:

"We have already fallen, what kind of program is this?"

The discussion up to this point is economic.

But there is also the political side of the matter.

It is known that the government has maintained a certain base support for many years, even in the most difficult times. This support is a core that often does not fall below the 30 percent band!

It is precisely at this point that the following question becomes inevitable:

Could it be that behind the economic management's ability to make such sharp statements with such ease lies this 30 percent political comfort zone that refuses to melt away?

Because this government thinks that no matter what happens, it will maintain this vote share, and it views the dissatisfaction in society as a "manageable" cost. It thinks that the hardships created by the economic program are also tolerable within this framework.

In short, we can easily say that the sentence "Figures do not support this" is not just a technical defense; because it is also a reflection of political self-confidence!

If we look at the issue from another angle;

Mehmet Şimşek is also implying the following:

"Either you are feeling it wrong or you are interpreting it wrong."

This is where the rubber meets the road. Because what the citizen feels cannot be wrong. A person cannot miscalculate their own impoverishment; if a person feels that the money in their pocket is not enough, this is not a data point; it is a result.

Let us underline this with a thick pen.

So who is really paying the price for this program?

When interest rates rise, who cannot access credit? The low-income earner.

When demand is suppressed, who fears losing their job? The worker.

Whose salary melts the fastest against inflation? The fixed-income earner.

In other words, the answer to the question of "who is bearing the burden" is clear not in theory, but in practice.

It is impossible for this burden to be distributed equally from top to bottom, because it is felt more heavily at the bottom.

The economic management asks for patience.

But from whom?

From those who have already been patient for years.

When have the low-income earners in this country ever been comfortable enough to be patient a little longer now?

When have they ever been protected against inflation to wait today saying "the program will work"?

In summary, what is happening in Turkey today is not a "perception error," but a "livelihood crisis."

We measure this crisis not with charts, as Mehmet Şimşek says, but with kitchen expenses. No matter how technically the economic management speaks, our people have only one question:

"Why am I finding it harder to live like a human being with each passing day?"

You cannot answer this question by saying "the figures don't say so."

But there is something different this time:

The society's threshold of patience is being exceeded day by day.

After a while, even the 30 percent comfort zone will not be enough to save the government.

We are no longer at the point where they say "let's grit our teeth a little." Let us end our article by saying that the issue is whether we have any teeth left to grit.