Despite President Obama and the Congress's very ardent efforts to put us completely under the control of the government, the economy is still plummeting.
Now fancy that.
I can just bet that all the aides in Washington were talking together on the day the budget and stimulus plan were being put through.
"Yeah, and we're going to get this all fixed up! Why, don't y'know that the way to get us all out of debt is to spend trillions more money that we really don't have?!"
"Hmm...never would have guessed..."
"Yeah, never woulda' thunk it either, but the whole government said it, so I guess we'll all be OK!"
"You sure Bob? I mean..."
"Ah, don't worry 'bout it! Why, even though we're heading towards a second depression, we can just deny this whole mess away!"
"Yeah..."
"Because, dontcha' know that if we try democratic socialism, it'll work so much better than China's democratic socialism?!"
"Yeah..."
Uh-huh.
So, even though we're spending trillions on an ineffective 'stimulus' package, don't worry! After all, that's a very, very expensive toilet the government is throwing your tax dollars down!!
Showing posts with label economic recovery plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic recovery plan. Show all posts
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Nationalization?
Okay...I'm just a little weirded out now. The government is buying up shares in banks...and the banks and the investors are happy about it!! Yay!
Like I said before- no businessman, CEO, or regular citizen should want this. It's insane to trust all your money to the same government that can't keep it's own coffers in the black, much less someone else's!
The government is going to start so-called 'stress tests' on the banks this week by pumping $100 billion in asset form into them to see how much money they actually need. From the article- "Companies deemed to need more money will be required to raise it from private sources, or else accept additional government investments. "
Wha'? Now the banks can't make it unless the government helps them by 'investing'? What happened to the bold entrepreneur who didn't need any help?
He's gone, that's where. He's been snuffed out, extinguished by stupid laws made by our very dear investing government. He's been thrown into exile by the forbidding of just opening a business. We've outlawed the grannies that want to open a restaurant in their old age.
But people are perfectly okay with this. The government has lulled them into a sense of security, safety and- dare I say it?- even freedom! Yes, they have us fooled, thinking we are free. In reality, we are in the worst type of bondage- that put upon us by our own willingness to accept what the government wants to do with our lives.
So should I really be surprised that places like CitiGroup are willingly going the way of nationalization? Why only one option for regaining the upper hand in the market exists- accepting government help?
No, I shouldn't. So why am I?
I don't know. Maybe because I still value freedom? After all, I am a crazy, greedy Libertarian.
Yeah, that's definitely it.
Like I said before- no businessman, CEO, or regular citizen should want this. It's insane to trust all your money to the same government that can't keep it's own coffers in the black, much less someone else's!
The government is going to start so-called 'stress tests' on the banks this week by pumping $100 billion in asset form into them to see how much money they actually need. From the article- "Companies deemed to need more money will be required to raise it from private sources, or else accept additional government investments. "
Wha'? Now the banks can't make it unless the government helps them by 'investing'? What happened to the bold entrepreneur who didn't need any help?
He's gone, that's where. He's been snuffed out, extinguished by stupid laws made by our very dear investing government. He's been thrown into exile by the forbidding of just opening a business. We've outlawed the grannies that want to open a restaurant in their old age.
But people are perfectly okay with this. The government has lulled them into a sense of security, safety and- dare I say it?- even freedom! Yes, they have us fooled, thinking we are free. In reality, we are in the worst type of bondage- that put upon us by our own willingness to accept what the government wants to do with our lives.
So should I really be surprised that places like CitiGroup are willingly going the way of nationalization? Why only one option for regaining the upper hand in the market exists- accepting government help?
No, I shouldn't. So why am I?
I don't know. Maybe because I still value freedom? After all, I am a crazy, greedy Libertarian.
Yeah, that's definitely it.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
To halve the debt by 2013...
All you have to do is increase taxes! And scale back on government! And stop giving $787 billion bailouts!
Now guess which one Obama isn't proposing. That's right- we're going to keep bailing people out while we simultaneously decrease the national debt. Uh-huh. Sure.
Anyway- this new budget our very dear President Obama is proposing will help cut the annual budget deficit down to only $533 billion instead of $1.3 trillion by 2013. They're going to accomplish this by cutting back on war spending, taking away tax breaks for people who make $250,000 or more, and 'streamlining government'.
Three reasons why those things aren't going to work.
1) The government's involved in it
2) The government loves to break promises
3) No way is that same government going to 'streamline' itself! (I'd love to do it's 'streamlining' for it, but that's another blog post.)
For starters, I really don't see how in the world we can cut back on spending in Iraq and the Middle East when we're sending yet more troops into say, Afghanistan. Doesn't make much sense, now does it? Sending more people, by the very nature of the action, costs more money. You have to pay for those soldiers to be transported, pay for them to be fed, housed, clothed...paid! Yeah. Not buying it.
Taking away tax breaks is going to hurt us much more than it's going to help us. $250,000 annually- let's face it- actually isn't that much nowadays. That's a pittance in places like New York City, where often rent for a decent place is usually $3,000 or more monthly! Yeah, it might sound like a lot, but it really isn't. And besides, those people who make more than that are often investors. If the investors can't invest because they don't have money, guess what's going to happen? Businesses are going to go under because they won't have money to stay in business anymore.
Thirdly- streamlining government? Gimme' a break. Congress will never streamline itself- at least, not for real- because then they wouldn't have as much power! If you take away some of those very, very, very important positions like, say, the Administration on Aging or the Endangered Species Committee, then Congress wouldn't have as many stooges to boss around- not to mention not half as many cool options to play around with!
Anyway- I'm really not buying this. It seems silly, to think that doing such things (that won't really get done, or won't achieve the desired result), will actually help or better anyone.
I have an idea to lower the national deficit. Let's cut down on all of the programs we're funding. Let's cut out foreign aid, stop giving bailouts, stop giving loans, stop all this stupid, wasteful spending...then I do believe our problem would be solved.
Now guess which one Obama isn't proposing. That's right- we're going to keep bailing people out while we simultaneously decrease the national debt. Uh-huh. Sure.
Anyway- this new budget our very dear President Obama is proposing will help cut the annual budget deficit down to only $533 billion instead of $1.3 trillion by 2013. They're going to accomplish this by cutting back on war spending, taking away tax breaks for people who make $250,000 or more, and 'streamlining government'.
Three reasons why those things aren't going to work.
1) The government's involved in it
2) The government loves to break promises
3) No way is that same government going to 'streamline' itself! (I'd love to do it's 'streamlining' for it, but that's another blog post.)
For starters, I really don't see how in the world we can cut back on spending in Iraq and the Middle East when we're sending yet more troops into say, Afghanistan. Doesn't make much sense, now does it? Sending more people, by the very nature of the action, costs more money. You have to pay for those soldiers to be transported, pay for them to be fed, housed, clothed...paid! Yeah. Not buying it.
Taking away tax breaks is going to hurt us much more than it's going to help us. $250,000 annually- let's face it- actually isn't that much nowadays. That's a pittance in places like New York City, where often rent for a decent place is usually $3,000 or more monthly! Yeah, it might sound like a lot, but it really isn't. And besides, those people who make more than that are often investors. If the investors can't invest because they don't have money, guess what's going to happen? Businesses are going to go under because they won't have money to stay in business anymore.
Thirdly- streamlining government? Gimme' a break. Congress will never streamline itself- at least, not for real- because then they wouldn't have as much power! If you take away some of those very, very, very important positions like, say, the Administration on Aging or the Endangered Species Committee, then Congress wouldn't have as many stooges to boss around- not to mention not half as many cool options to play around with!
Anyway- I'm really not buying this. It seems silly, to think that doing such things (that won't really get done, or won't achieve the desired result), will actually help or better anyone.
I have an idea to lower the national deficit. Let's cut down on all of the programs we're funding. Let's cut out foreign aid, stop giving bailouts, stop giving loans, stop all this stupid, wasteful spending...then I do believe our problem would be solved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
