As Obama looks to spend 900 billion dollars to keep the economy above water the US public is starting to question it's outcome. Will it be enough? Is it being spent on the right things? Should we look more into tax cuts as an alternative?
History has shown that huge government stimulus will help an economy continue on feeble legs. However, we are a mature economy with an aging population that has little domestic manufacturing. Should this make a difference in the decision of where we spend our money from a stimulus package?
We know that tax cuts produce a bigger growth multiplier than government spending. Should we look a little closer at letting the American people decide where to stimulate the economy?
Building roads and bridges are great in a young economy with growing manufacturing, but is it wise for a mature, consuming economy? Spending on health care and education will no doubt focus funds on future areas of demand but will these new assets only require more government funds in future years to continue to provide the services that will be provided by the new schools and hospitals? Funds that we no longer be able to borrow. Evey problem has many solutions....some are just better than others.....lets think about what the best one is!!!
Cio
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is the history support of government helping the economy referring to the 10 years that FDR tried to help it? Or is it just ignoring the crisis in the 80s when RR got us out by lowering taxes?
ReplyDeleteGov doesn't MAKE anything, they take and inflate. Say someone's temp job is made from someones taxes, that takes money FROM the economy because those people who the gov took it from have less to spend.
One could say that people might have to be force to spend i guess... but who would NOT want to spend if they were able to keep more of their money?
Now say you lower taxes like RR did, especially for businesses... see, business does actually make real jobs and they have real results, they make something besides just buildings for themselves for the fun of it and to be green. Give THEM the money, better yet, let them keep what they earn! Crazy concept that has not yet gotten to the minds of socialists.
Say gov spending DOES help, this stimulus bill has like 10% going to any building or stimulus for the economy! AND there are strings attached to everything that they DO try to build, like the bankers who have their pay caped even if they had not agreed to gov running their business when they got the money.
Should we look a little closer at letting the American people decide where to stimulate the economy?
yeah... maybe we should because they MAKE the economy, government TAKES money and is suppose to protect people, build roads, and worry about getting elected. They have no place in the economy! Whenever they come in a regulate things (which is all they can do) it messes it up! Why can't companies hire people in America as well as in other countries? They legally work for less! they cannot hire unemployed people for $3/hr for some crappy job, they have to have something they can do to be worth $7. People may be boo-hooing about how "we need more money then that!" but the market (as always) will regulate that and fix it. Gov comes in, limits the jobs that Americans can work, so they go oversees because labor is such a large part of their cost.
The president once said something to the effect that you cant spend money that you don't have, that should apply to the government. This inflation will hurt this country, even if Obama can get out before the hurt is felt. This is a panic move by Americans because of the media and the government (polosky said we will loose 500 million jobs per month...) and it is just the right situation for socialists to come in and start programs that can never be eliminated later because it only makes once free americans more dependent on government
About spending more, didn't these same people proposing this thing hate what Bush did when he mounded up a big debt?
ReplyDeleteLets look at that, where did it come from: the war. Where did the war money go? To solders and equipment which all come from the USA.
So, whats the differnce in spending it there or on construction jobs for government buildings?
If the first debt was bad, why should we more and double it when the money will work the same way it did when we went into debt first?
The inconsistancy alone in how these people view this should cause warning. The fact is, government is not checked to 'make' a good product, they take money forcefully then push it back out. They cause unstability in the economic system. It would be better if they took no action.