So far away
After reading a very depressing article on New York Times I found myself continuing to question our government spending habits. I think the people who scorned Bush for his liberal use of funds are now realizing that Obama is putting us in the same boat. Except this boat is expected to be $9 trillion in a national deficit by next year.
Yet they keep pushing. Sure, cash for guzzlers may have been a very mild success, but considering it helped the wealthy and the car dealers more than anyone is nothing to write home about. And now we're re-allocating more energy funds for the "cash for fridges" program.
And they're still pushing the health care bill as if the world will end if we don't get this enacted tomorrow. We're watching Social Security shrink before our eyes and yet, spending and spending. And spending.
I've really respected Dave Ramsey for the fact that he's made millions by telling people not to spend more money than they make. And to save money for the things you'll need it for in the future. It's funny that the US government is still operating with the complete opposite mindset. And then the justification is that you have to spend billions to fix the problem.
I don't pretend to know how the deep, inner workings of how Washington works, but I do know that the same old gig is tired and useless. Yes, Obama is different than Bush (and even Clinton and the Bush before that), but the larger issues never seem to be mended. What's missing?
Let's chat.
posted by Patrick Copeland @ 12:37 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
I do think the bailouts were necessary in order to prevent an absolute catastrophy - and potentially a "failed state." It bothers me immensely, though, the the folks who received the bailout money are still keeping the old habits they've always kept. Truly, nothing has been learned.
As far as the economic stimulus goes, I am fine with it. The idea is not that it is money we've pissed away, but that by creating jobs and specifically creating green jobs for products that potentially be exported, people's earnings will be greater, the tax pool will be greater, and we'll not only be able to pay back all we've owed, we'll make a profit. It's not that I - as a liberal - have a problem with the pricetag on Bush's war, it's that we're not going to see anything out of it. And, of couse, I see it as immoral. Government spending is certainly not inherently good. But it doesn't have to be inherently bad, either. If it is an investment in people (as I also see the healthcare bill to be), these things can actually turn out to be immensely profitable. And I loved Rocknrolla.
Austin,
Always nice to hear a logical voice. I agree that the bailout (on one level) was absolutely needed. I think looking forward, that the regulations congress is presenting is dangerous (i.e. giving the fed regulatory control). But I can go on for days about the fed.
Let's hang soon. Maybe we can chat about all this stuff. I know I often sound a bit jaded, but I have a sane mind, I promise.
I'd love to chat. I've been meaning to ask if you wanted to go out for a drink sometime. I couldn't be more conflicted about the Fed, and a lot of it has to do with how jaded I am about our own legislative process. I am absolutely terrified that one entity would have so much control over our monetary policy without anyone there to keep them in check. BUT it is apolitical, nonpartisan, and hopefully run by people who have a much better understanding than 99.9% of Americans. If we were confronted with a crises as big or greater than the economic crisis of 2008, and the resolution was left up to Congress, the issue would undoubtedly be politicized, and the nation's best interests would fall by the wayside. Additionally, there is not much to suggest that someone like Michelle Bachmann has a single brain cell that could comprehend monetary policy, and when something needs to happen in the timely fashion, Congress never delivers.
A beer indeed. I need a sounding board for my political ramblings.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home