President Obama, in attempting to curry favor with the Republican bloc, has made his own party just a tad angry. The President finally reached some sort of compromise with the Republicans on the issue of tax cuts. To give you the short story- they're being extended. Again. And economists are predicting we'll be $900 billion deeper into our deficit before they expire again.
Of course, the one thing everybody is forgetting is that, if we didn't have so much darn spending on our plate, to the tune of some 3,500 billion, we might not have to levy so many taxes. But since that logic is soooo fourth grade, we're not going to go that route. No siree. It's so much more fun to dig ourselves deeper into debt, but hey, at least we'll be happy while we do it! Sort of.
On another note, I thought I'd say something about the drama surrounding the Wikileaks fiasco.
Heh. I find it ridiculous, the furor that's arising over all this. Our government is paralyzed with fear that, horror of horrors, we'll figure out what backroom deals they've been negotiating, where our money is being sent, and what they've been doing in other countries all these years.
In any case, I don't understand why some people are calling for Assange to be either thrown in jail to rot for all eternity, or, alternately, to be hunted down like an al Qaeda operative. Meh. If we're going to hunt him down like we do the leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban, Mrs. Palin, he's quite safe. Trust me on this one. Of course, if we're going to hunt down Assange that way, then it would also make sense to hunt down some New York Times writer or editor or somebody. Yes, indeed.
In any case, I think much of the blustering is just attempted distraction. Our government doesn't want the rest of the world to suddenly realize that we've been total junior-highers and have been saying bad things about them behind their backs, not to mention trying to pull all sorts of shenanigans. That would be bad. v.v
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Randomness
Well. It's been awhile since I posted, and for that I'm (sort of) sorry. Life has been nuts for me. ^.^ My mom and I attended a Students for Liberty conference in Austin, Texas on the 6th, which was awesome...except for the eight-hour drive to get there. Thank God for iPods and big books. (In addition, I'm participating in NaNoWriMo, and planning for another missions trip next year...and trying to raise money....but that's a whole 'nother subject, and we won't go into it.)
In any case, I figured I'd be a good blog author and post some stuff, just because I think that would help make my blog more interesting...and stuff.
The Pentagon has decided that repealing DADT would do practically nothing to the nature of our conflicts overseas and the makeup of the military. Really now? How surprising. Imagine that..."people are people, no matter how..." uh.... "strange." There we go. There are some pretty strange people in the world, let me tell you. Anyway, I don't think this study comes as a surprise to much of anybody except people who think gays are a literal abomination and that they should all be railroaded out of the military, along with Muslims.
In other news, a couple people in Washington are beginning to see that, hey, if we want to cut spending...we're going to have to give up some stuff! Like, we might have to stop handing out money like it grows on trees, or something. Huh, imagine that. That's...weird. I'm wondering when more people will catch onto the truth that we're not going to be able to have a utopia where we spend tons of money and reduce the deficit. Sorry, folks, it doesn't work that way. So, future retirees, buckle up and start saving money, because you're going to need it if you want to retire. Kids, save for college. Single mothers, find a good guy and settle down. Because this isn't going to be pretty, and people are going to be hurt in the short term. Loss and having to live a less exorbitant lifestyle sometimes is part of life. Get used to it.
However- and this is a big however- it would be far better to both cut $200 billion (or more) from our budget....but not increase taxes and "squeeze" an extra $100 billion out of Americans. Because people aren't going to like it. It's not going to go over well. "Yeah, we're cutting spending...but we need more money to do it!"
....Right.
My favorite quote of this whole article? "It would stabilize borrowing within the next three years, balance the budget by 2040 and bring the debt more in line with historical norms."
We're going to stabilize borrowing. Not stop borrowing. Stabilize it. Yeah. We're going to stabilize the Titanic after that.
Oh, and don't forget this one: "Spending cuts outweigh revenue increases by about three to one, a ratio Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, called lopsided."
Wait. Isn't that...the point? That...you don't have enough revenue. So you're cutting spending. Yeah. Wouldn't that be sort of the purpose of this venture?
Well, there you go. Your daily spurt of cynicism.
In other news, today is Veteran's Day! In the spirit of the holiday, I thought I'd copy my Facebook status from this morning relating to it:
In any case, I figured I'd be a good blog author and post some stuff, just because I think that would help make my blog more interesting...and stuff.
The Pentagon has decided that repealing DADT would do practically nothing to the nature of our conflicts overseas and the makeup of the military. Really now? How surprising. Imagine that..."people are people, no matter how..." uh.... "strange." There we go. There are some pretty strange people in the world, let me tell you. Anyway, I don't think this study comes as a surprise to much of anybody except people who think gays are a literal abomination and that they should all be railroaded out of the military, along with Muslims.
In other news, a couple people in Washington are beginning to see that, hey, if we want to cut spending...we're going to have to give up some stuff! Like, we might have to stop handing out money like it grows on trees, or something. Huh, imagine that. That's...weird. I'm wondering when more people will catch onto the truth that we're not going to be able to have a utopia where we spend tons of money and reduce the deficit. Sorry, folks, it doesn't work that way. So, future retirees, buckle up and start saving money, because you're going to need it if you want to retire. Kids, save for college. Single mothers, find a good guy and settle down. Because this isn't going to be pretty, and people are going to be hurt in the short term. Loss and having to live a less exorbitant lifestyle sometimes is part of life. Get used to it.
However- and this is a big however- it would be far better to both cut $200 billion (or more) from our budget....but not increase taxes and "squeeze" an extra $100 billion out of Americans. Because people aren't going to like it. It's not going to go over well. "Yeah, we're cutting spending...but we need more money to do it!"
....Right.
My favorite quote of this whole article? "It would stabilize borrowing within the next three years, balance the budget by 2040 and bring the debt more in line with historical norms."
We're going to stabilize borrowing. Not stop borrowing. Stabilize it. Yeah. We're going to stabilize the Titanic after that.
Oh, and don't forget this one: "Spending cuts outweigh revenue increases by about three to one, a ratio Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, called lopsided."
Wait. Isn't that...the point? That...you don't have enough revenue. So you're cutting spending. Yeah. Wouldn't that be sort of the purpose of this venture?
Well, there you go. Your daily spurt of cynicism.
In other news, today is Veteran's Day! In the spirit of the holiday, I thought I'd copy my Facebook status from this morning relating to it:
A thank-you to all our veterans. Your sacrifice is appreciated, even if our politicians are dingbats and have put you (and are putting the current generation) in unnecessary danger.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
State of the Union, Part I
**I know, I know, I was supposed to do this last week. Shoot me. :P**
Well, I'm going to read over the transcript of President Obama's State of the Union address, and comment on a few of his comments...and politely applaud if I actually agree with him. :P And yes, it's late. Oh well. ^.^
First off, I'd like to rant about the many times applause interjected. It was quite annoying. Like really, really, really incredibly annoying.
Simply put, at least at first, President Obama's address seemed to be yet more of the hopey-changey mumbo jumbo we were subjected to during the campaign. Nothing much of consequence, no real solutions offered; just "moving forward" and hope. Yeah, sorry, but moving forward doesn't pay the bills.
"And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal."
He hated the bank bailouts? Well we sure didn't see that when he was pushing for them so hard, and when he quite eagerly crammed it into his budget, despite the economic ramifications that would almost certainly ensue (chief among them a higher debt and deficit, higher taxes, more spending on a federal level, but less on a state and individual level).
"Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses."
He cut taxes on small businesses. Really? My dad owns his own business, as I think I've mentioned before. This year, he paid $12,000 in taxes. Twelve thousand dollars. My family is not rich; my dad's business is not rich. He has five employees, plus a CPA. This year, we couldn't even draw a profit check. Yet our capital gains taxes went up.
I'd also like to add that just because paper says a business made a 'profit' doesn't mean they have that money. On paper, my dad's electrical company made a profit. Yet we have no extra money in the business' bank account. **Pet Peeve Moment**
"The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act."
Ah. So the fact that the American people are just resilient has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with the fact that the market is doing its job, at least in part. Oh no. It was all the doing of the Almighty Government.
I'd also like to point out that...um...well, most of that money hasn't even been spent. So unless they managed to (through some conniving on the part of the Fed, no doubt) stretch each dollar by several hundred thousand, I don't see how that much good came out of the little they actually spent. (The rest is, apparently, still sitting in a treasury somewhere. Or currently coming off the presses in the Federal Reserve mint.)
"And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America."
Excellent idea. I mean, like imagine that- companies leave because they have to pay high taxes!
But just giving them tax breaks isn't enough. One of the most basic rules of economics is that people will not do things unless there is an incentive to do them. If there is no incentive (money) for companies to hire people here, they won't- and I don't think miniscule tax breaks will do much to add said incentives.
We need to make it easier for companies to keep workers, especially smaller businesses. They can't, not because there aren't enough tax breaks, but because they have to a) pay so much to their workers, b) pay so much in benefits to their workers, and c) they have to pay so many taxes for their workers.
Yes, yes, we all feel sorry for the poor laborers of America who unjustly toil while their evil bosses, the ones who really benefit from capitalism, drive them unmercifully hard. But then again, that picture isn't real. So it's really a nonissue.
Workers in America don't need to be paid so much. There's something messed up when a person can get paid $7.50 an hour at Walmart for putting my bleach and apples together. Pay should be by merit, not by what the government says employers have to pay. This is simple- if someone does a good job, they get more money. If they do a crappy job, they don't get money. Too bad for them. Maybe they'll grow up and see that "Hey, I need to do a better job!"
Something I just noticed- Obama likes setting Goals. Perhaps we should give him a button- Honorary Goal Setter of the United States of America.
"Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job."
What constitutes "a good job"? Sorry, but not everybody can have a job that pays $100,000 a year. We have to have garbage men and plumbers and electricians and sewer scrubbers and all sorts of other people. Those are still good jobs. We need people who can flip burgers and stock shelves and sew shirts and do nails. Those are still good jobs.
Someone has to do them. And if everybody has a college degree, there will be no one to flip burgers or take out the garbage or clean out our blocked sewers or fix our lights. Then your college degree is pretty much worthless. I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to pursue their dreams...but people shouldn't be pushed to do something they cannot feasibly do, whether because of money, time, or other constraints. That is just as wrong. (And besides, I've met a few people whose highest goal is to be a garbage man or a plumber.)
"And let's tell another 1 million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years, and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service..."
...Wow. No. This isn't how debt works. If people get into debt so they can go to college, that's their problem. Too bad for them. If they knew they wouldn't be able to pay for it, they shouldn't have gone, or they should have made better money choices.
Secondly, I don't think we should be telling college students the taxpayer will foot the bill for them. My goal is to be able to either work or pay my way through college. Yeah, it might be difficult. It probably will be. But I'm not going to steal from others, or chain myself to a huge debt because I couldn't plan ahead and manage my money.
Of course, I do think college tuition could go down. Significantly. How much they charge for the privilege of going to college is nuts, and I'm pretty sure those deans and board members aren't exactly hurting for money. They could lower rates. (But they won't, because they know their education can only be gotten in certain places, they're some of those places, and people will pay whatever it takes.)
"I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now, it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics."
Nevertheless, it is good politics, and I haven't seen anything but rhetoric that says otherwise. The political reality is this- if he doesn't get this passed ASAP, he's going to be in big trouble with his base.
It still amazes me how much Obama throws into the Federal government's court. Sorry, but ensuring everyone has affordable coverage is not the Federal government's job. You might- might- be able to swing it through state governments. But not the Federal government. It is so unconstitutional on so many levels. That is the job of the free markets and (my, here's a concept!) the people. If people wouldn't blindly follow the insurance companies and their elected officials (*coughRepublicanscough*) we would be in a lot smaller mess.
"By -- by the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."
This I can agree with. Bush did do a lot of bad things, and a lot of it left us a lot deeper in debt. But that doesn't mean Obama has to continue the process. I thought the point of "Change" was to change the past administration's bad policies and find good ones...not just continue the old bad ones.
"I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do, but families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same."
Agreed. Like oh, cutting back on spending. And to be quite frank, adding trillions to the debt heap with a healthcare bill that won't do a thing isn't going to help us dig out of said debt heap. Believe me.
"To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it."
We could if we'd start scaling back programs that are already bankrupt and have fundamental flaws. Like Medicare. Instead of adding more bandaids to the huge gash in it, let's just let it go down. Or welfare. Too many people are dependent on it. Wean them off. Or the Department of Education. Guzzles money, and our literacy rates are declining. Let's rethink that one, make it so that it works better, for less money.
Or Social Security. Good idea, bad results. Too many people get it, too much taxes get taken to pay for it. DHS, TSA...yeah, those could go and I don't think anyone would cry bucket loads of tears. The wars. And our foreign bases. Excess foreign aid. All those things could go, and there are other things I'm sure I'm missing...or rather, it would take much too long to list them all. Like the Administration on Aging. Or the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee (Seriously, it's a real committee).
Endless Programs, Endless Possibilities for Fund Reduction.
"And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s."
Something that would really help us- either bribing the Federal Reserve, or getting rid of it. It has a past history of artificially inflating our currency, then letting it plummet back- or the other way around. Either way, it isn't good. Now, I see no problem with a pay-as-you-go policy. It's actually quite a wise way to do things. But um, well, I don't think it'll help much when the Senators keep raising their incomes. And sending money to special interests. Nope nope nope.
"From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument, that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts, including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.
The problem is, that's what we did for eight years."
Actually, that's really not what we did for eight years. What we did for eight years is Regulate, Spend Some More, Start A War, Make A Gaffe, Distract the Pesky People, Start Another War, Regulate, Spend Some More...
Not exactly a recipe for success, or debt reduction.
Part II soon to come.
Well, I'm going to read over the transcript of President Obama's State of the Union address, and comment on a few of his comments...and politely applaud if I actually agree with him. :P And yes, it's late. Oh well. ^.^
First off, I'd like to rant about the many times applause interjected. It was quite annoying. Like really, really, really incredibly annoying.
Simply put, at least at first, President Obama's address seemed to be yet more of the hopey-changey mumbo jumbo we were subjected to during the campaign. Nothing much of consequence, no real solutions offered; just "moving forward" and hope. Yeah, sorry, but moving forward doesn't pay the bills.
"And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal."
He hated the bank bailouts? Well we sure didn't see that when he was pushing for them so hard, and when he quite eagerly crammed it into his budget, despite the economic ramifications that would almost certainly ensue (chief among them a higher debt and deficit, higher taxes, more spending on a federal level, but less on a state and individual level).
"Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses."
He cut taxes on small businesses. Really? My dad owns his own business, as I think I've mentioned before. This year, he paid $12,000 in taxes. Twelve thousand dollars. My family is not rich; my dad's business is not rich. He has five employees, plus a CPA. This year, we couldn't even draw a profit check. Yet our capital gains taxes went up.
I'd also like to add that just because paper says a business made a 'profit' doesn't mean they have that money. On paper, my dad's electrical company made a profit. Yet we have no extra money in the business' bank account. **Pet Peeve Moment**
"The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act."
Ah. So the fact that the American people are just resilient has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with the fact that the market is doing its job, at least in part. Oh no. It was all the doing of the Almighty Government.
I'd also like to point out that...um...well, most of that money hasn't even been spent. So unless they managed to (through some conniving on the part of the Fed, no doubt) stretch each dollar by several hundred thousand, I don't see how that much good came out of the little they actually spent. (The rest is, apparently, still sitting in a treasury somewhere. Or currently coming off the presses in the Federal Reserve mint.)
"And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America."
Excellent idea. I mean, like imagine that- companies leave because they have to pay high taxes!
But just giving them tax breaks isn't enough. One of the most basic rules of economics is that people will not do things unless there is an incentive to do them. If there is no incentive (money) for companies to hire people here, they won't- and I don't think miniscule tax breaks will do much to add said incentives.
We need to make it easier for companies to keep workers, especially smaller businesses. They can't, not because there aren't enough tax breaks, but because they have to a) pay so much to their workers, b) pay so much in benefits to their workers, and c) they have to pay so many taxes for their workers.
Yes, yes, we all feel sorry for the poor laborers of America who unjustly toil while their evil bosses, the ones who really benefit from capitalism, drive them unmercifully hard. But then again, that picture isn't real. So it's really a nonissue.
Workers in America don't need to be paid so much. There's something messed up when a person can get paid $7.50 an hour at Walmart for putting my bleach and apples together. Pay should be by merit, not by what the government says employers have to pay. This is simple- if someone does a good job, they get more money. If they do a crappy job, they don't get money. Too bad for them. Maybe they'll grow up and see that "Hey, I need to do a better job!"
Something I just noticed- Obama likes setting Goals. Perhaps we should give him a button- Honorary Goal Setter of the United States of America.
"Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job."
What constitutes "a good job"? Sorry, but not everybody can have a job that pays $100,000 a year. We have to have garbage men and plumbers and electricians and sewer scrubbers and all sorts of other people. Those are still good jobs. We need people who can flip burgers and stock shelves and sew shirts and do nails. Those are still good jobs.
Someone has to do them. And if everybody has a college degree, there will be no one to flip burgers or take out the garbage or clean out our blocked sewers or fix our lights. Then your college degree is pretty much worthless. I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to pursue their dreams...but people shouldn't be pushed to do something they cannot feasibly do, whether because of money, time, or other constraints. That is just as wrong. (And besides, I've met a few people whose highest goal is to be a garbage man or a plumber.)
"And let's tell another 1 million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years, and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service..."
...Wow. No. This isn't how debt works. If people get into debt so they can go to college, that's their problem. Too bad for them. If they knew they wouldn't be able to pay for it, they shouldn't have gone, or they should have made better money choices.
Secondly, I don't think we should be telling college students the taxpayer will foot the bill for them. My goal is to be able to either work or pay my way through college. Yeah, it might be difficult. It probably will be. But I'm not going to steal from others, or chain myself to a huge debt because I couldn't plan ahead and manage my money.
Of course, I do think college tuition could go down. Significantly. How much they charge for the privilege of going to college is nuts, and I'm pretty sure those deans and board members aren't exactly hurting for money. They could lower rates. (But they won't, because they know their education can only be gotten in certain places, they're some of those places, and people will pay whatever it takes.)
"I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now, it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics."
Nevertheless, it is good politics, and I haven't seen anything but rhetoric that says otherwise. The political reality is this- if he doesn't get this passed ASAP, he's going to be in big trouble with his base.
It still amazes me how much Obama throws into the Federal government's court. Sorry, but ensuring everyone has affordable coverage is not the Federal government's job. You might- might- be able to swing it through state governments. But not the Federal government. It is so unconstitutional on so many levels. That is the job of the free markets and (my, here's a concept!) the people. If people wouldn't blindly follow the insurance companies and their elected officials (*coughRepublicanscough*) we would be in a lot smaller mess.
"By -- by the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."
This I can agree with. Bush did do a lot of bad things, and a lot of it left us a lot deeper in debt. But that doesn't mean Obama has to continue the process. I thought the point of "Change" was to change the past administration's bad policies and find good ones...not just continue the old bad ones.
"I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do, but families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same."
Agreed. Like oh, cutting back on spending. And to be quite frank, adding trillions to the debt heap with a healthcare bill that won't do a thing isn't going to help us dig out of said debt heap. Believe me.
"To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it."
We could if we'd start scaling back programs that are already bankrupt and have fundamental flaws. Like Medicare. Instead of adding more bandaids to the huge gash in it, let's just let it go down. Or welfare. Too many people are dependent on it. Wean them off. Or the Department of Education. Guzzles money, and our literacy rates are declining. Let's rethink that one, make it so that it works better, for less money.
Or Social Security. Good idea, bad results. Too many people get it, too much taxes get taken to pay for it. DHS, TSA...yeah, those could go and I don't think anyone would cry bucket loads of tears. The wars. And our foreign bases. Excess foreign aid. All those things could go, and there are other things I'm sure I'm missing...or rather, it would take much too long to list them all. Like the Administration on Aging. Or the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee (Seriously, it's a real committee).
Endless Programs, Endless Possibilities for Fund Reduction.
"And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s."
Something that would really help us- either bribing the Federal Reserve, or getting rid of it. It has a past history of artificially inflating our currency, then letting it plummet back- or the other way around. Either way, it isn't good. Now, I see no problem with a pay-as-you-go policy. It's actually quite a wise way to do things. But um, well, I don't think it'll help much when the Senators keep raising their incomes. And sending money to special interests. Nope nope nope.
"From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument, that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts, including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.
The problem is, that's what we did for eight years."
Actually, that's really not what we did for eight years. What we did for eight years is Regulate, Spend Some More, Start A War, Make A Gaffe, Distract the Pesky People, Start Another War, Regulate, Spend Some More...
Not exactly a recipe for success, or debt reduction.
Part II soon to come.
Friday, May 1, 2009
How to fix the economy...
- Make credit more accessible
- Bail out companies
- Stimulate the economy
- Help the auto industry
- Prevent foreclosures
- Extend unemployment aid
- Take over failed banks
Say hello to President Obama's plan. Wonderful, isn't it?
Mr. Obama, let me tell you a couple things.
For starters, giving people more credit won't do a single thing! One cannot spend oneself out of debt. It doesn't work that way. Furthermore, one cannot borrow oneself out of debt. Period. Credit isn't going to do a single thing! We do not need to 'borrow' to fix the economy; that's what got us into this mess!
Let us look at the facts. President Clinton was the one who pushed banks to lend to 'high-risk' borrowers. These 'high-risk' borrowers hence defaulted, and many of their loans were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Sound familiar? Fannie and Freddy summarily went down the tubes because they weren't bringing in money.
Bailing out companies will do absolutely nothing. Hence why Chrysler (which was 'bailed out') is now failing. Bailing out does nothing but apply yet another bandaid to the gaping wound we've given our economy, starting with FDR's 'New Deal'. More bandaids will do zilch. Nada. Zero.
As I said before- lending money to people who will not pay it back is not the way to 'stimulate' the economy. Furthermore, it isn't the government's job to stimulate the economy! It is your job to print money, period. But, of course, since you've already given up that power, I suppose you need to feel like you have some say in what happens...
We've helped the auto industry. To the tune of $31 billion. Not that it did anything, since the companies are still failing. Some help.
Preventing foreclosures will, again, do nothing. People make mistakes. People make dumb mistakes. Buying a house when they couldn't afford one is a pretty dumb mistake. It's what Dave Ramsey calls Dum Math and StupidTax. Stupid Tax is the price you pay when you use Dum Math and make an even dumber decision.
It's the way of life. But giving these people money- which ultimately, is coming from their pocket anyway- isn't the way to fix the problem.
'Unemployment aid' is about the stupidest idea that ever graced the pantheon of business regulations. You know what? If you get 'unemployed'- your employer fired you- there was probably a reason. You know why you're unemployed? Probably because you did a shoddy job. Period.
No one is entitled to money. To get money, you have to work for it. That is the most basic of all beliefs that the American people have ever held dear. Do you think those Irish people came to America hoping to get a government handout and to live on 'easy street'. Of course not! They were glad to get their factory job!
The idea that somehow we as Americans are 'entitled' to everything, is false. We are not 'entitled' to anything but life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's it. If your pursuit of happiness includes a house, go get a job and pay for it. Don't expect the rest of American society to foot the tab for you.
The government taking over banks? It's already happened, but it's a stupid idea, nonetheless. The idea that somehow the government- who has absolutely no money, and couldn't keep money in it's pocket if it tried- is qualified to handle the entirety of our money stores, is silly.
$10.43 trillion has been allocated to these programs. How much is a trillion? A lot. What is at the bottom of that page is what our government is throwing around. Pretty scary.
On that note, let us end this...Glorified Rant.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Finally- Optimism...sort of
In his speech to congress last night, President Obama finally showed a little optimism about this 'crisis'. Maybe because his bill got passed? Anyway- apparently, the Congress just loved it, standing and applauding him several times.
Personally, I really don't see what was so great about it. More rhetoric, more 'take from the rich and give to the government so we can say we're giving to the poor', more 'give the government everything so we can...take care of you." Like this quote:
I've made my position on these points clear before, but I'll do it again.
Prosperity is not the government's job.
Creating jobs is not the government's job.
Investing in energy is not the government's job.
Investing in healthcare and education is not
All those things are more efficiently handled, handled with less cost, and also just work better overall when put in the hands of the private sector. When the free market is allowed to be free, prosperity will happen on it's own. It happened for over 100 years here in America. People were allowed to do what they wanted with their land, didn't have to have government permission to build a building. People were prosperous, all their needs were met- without the government's interference.
Same with jobs. If the government would just get their noses out of the people's business, we wouldn't have a problem. If employers didn't have to pay exorbitant taxes for things like Medicare, unemployment, and the like, they could afford to hire more people. Unemployment problem solved.
Energy, healthcare, and education are always better when handled by the private sector. History shows it- even recent history. All energy breakthroughs have been done by private companies, without government involvement. Healthcare the same. It always works better when the government doesn't get their paws on it. If education is really handled better by the government, why did we see a decline in literacy rates after universal public schooling became the norm?
My point is that the government can't do it all. Even if they can, they shouldn't. This Big Brother mentality, that the government should take care of all of us is wrong. We don't need- and I don't want- the government controlling our lives.
Personally, I really don't see what was so great about it. More rhetoric, more 'take from the rich and give to the government so we can say we're giving to the poor', more 'give the government everything so we can...take care of you." Like this quote:
"Now is the time to act boldly and wisely - to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jump-start job creation, re-start lending and invest in areas like energy, healthcare and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down."
I've made my position on these points clear before, but I'll do it again.
Prosperity is not the government's job.
Creating jobs is not the government's job.
Investing in energy is not the government's job.
Investing in healthcare and education is not
All those things are more efficiently handled, handled with less cost, and also just work better overall when put in the hands of the private sector. When the free market is allowed to be free, prosperity will happen on it's own. It happened for over 100 years here in America. People were allowed to do what they wanted with their land, didn't have to have government permission to build a building. People were prosperous, all their needs were met- without the government's interference.
Same with jobs. If the government would just get their noses out of the people's business, we wouldn't have a problem. If employers didn't have to pay exorbitant taxes for things like Medicare, unemployment, and the like, they could afford to hire more people. Unemployment problem solved.
Energy, healthcare, and education are always better when handled by the private sector. History shows it- even recent history. All energy breakthroughs have been done by private companies, without government involvement. Healthcare the same. It always works better when the government doesn't get their paws on it. If education is really handled better by the government, why did we see a decline in literacy rates after universal public schooling became the norm?
My point is that the government can't do it all. Even if they can, they shouldn't. This Big Brother mentality, that the government should take care of all of us is wrong. We don't need- and I don't want- the government controlling our lives.
"As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't."
Oh gosh. There is no nice way to say this- President Obama is not being very truthful. Oh yeah- "I'm trying to create jobs, make you utterly dependent on the government, and control every little facet of your lives, but hey- I still don't believe in big government!" President Obama may not believe in larger government. That might be because he believes in a government consisting of one person!! (aka.- a dictatorship.)
"Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5m jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector - jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit."
First of all- 3 and a half million jobs? That isn't very much (considering the 500 million that are losing their jobs monthly!), and thinking of how frantic Obama was about how many Americans were losing their jobs daily. Sure a lot more than 3 million. Come to think of it, how do you 'create' jobs?
Oh! I know! Hire some people to dig holes, then more to fill them in! Yay! The government takes care of us! Hail the Leader!
"Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Healthcare professionals can continue caring for our sick. There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make."
Okay...so we're forcing businesses to keep employees that are unneedful, and are simply draining resources. Wow. I like it. It's so...Communism-y. And that's what we want, right?!
"Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college."
Things like this make me want to work my way through college just so I can prove that I can do it. So I can prove that I don't need the government's help. To prove that even though I'm 'struggling', I don't need money that, ultimately, is coming out of some other person's pocket in the form of taxpayer dollars. Or, my own, if I pay taxes.
Now just a few fun little quotes that I won't comment on:
"And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy."
"So I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves necessary. Because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended recession. And to ensure that a crisis of this magnitude never happens again, I ask Congress to move quickly on legislation that will finally reform our outdated regulatory system. It is time to put in place tough, new common-sense rules of the road so that our financial market rewards drive and innovation, and punishes short-cuts and abuse."
"I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity."
"In each case, government didn't supplant private enterprise; it catalysed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive."
Short and sweet- a Communism-laced speech. Read the entire transcript here- if you can stomach it.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Yay! Willing Socialism!
I can just hear the cheers of the government as financial institutions choose to have government involvement. Like CitiGroup. Yes, that's right. Some companies are actually choosing to become part of this new socialist, government controlled change!!
I can just see the TV ads now: The announcer gets up there... "Comrades! Our valiant leader, the Messiah, Obama, has a brilliant offer to give you! Just join the Socialist Bucks for Shares, and let us take care of your business! You can have that resort trip you've always wanted! It won't be the Bahamas, but hey- Socialist Society Resort is so much better! We'll turn your profits into deficits, just like with everything else we've ever handled! Just call 1-800-Soc-iety for your share in this extraordinary, payed-by-you-and-other-taxpayers offer today!"
Sometimes I crack myself up...
Anyway- do people really, seriously think this is a good thing? You'd think these businesses would be falling all over themselves to get away from the government's help, not the other way around!
Considering the government's lousy money handling record- that would put any five year old to shame- I really don't understand this push for the government to handle everything.
Maybe I'm just crazy. Maybe I'm too Libertarian. Maybe I'm just greedy.
Yeah, that's probably it.
(Know why the Liberals jingle? Cuz all they have left is 'change'. Hahahaha...I thought it was funny. :P)
I can just see the TV ads now: The announcer gets up there... "Comrades! Our valiant leader, the Messiah, Obama, has a brilliant offer to give you! Just join the Socialist Bucks for Shares, and let us take care of your business! You can have that resort trip you've always wanted! It won't be the Bahamas, but hey- Socialist Society Resort is so much better! We'll turn your profits into deficits, just like with everything else we've ever handled! Just call 1-800-Soc-iety for your share in this extraordinary, payed-by-you-and-other-taxpayers offer today!"
Sometimes I crack myself up...
Anyway- do people really, seriously think this is a good thing? You'd think these businesses would be falling all over themselves to get away from the government's help, not the other way around!
Considering the government's lousy money handling record- that would put any five year old to shame- I really don't understand this push for the government to handle everything.
Maybe I'm just crazy. Maybe I'm too Libertarian. Maybe I'm just greedy.
Yeah, that's probably it.
Hail Obama and "Change"
(Know why the Liberals jingle? Cuz all they have left is 'change'. Hahahaha...I thought it was funny. :P)
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
