Comments Posted By Asc
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
THE SANTELLI RANT: A RED BULL RUSH
Michael-- you think it is wanting to punish someone to ask him to bear the consequences of his own bad decisions, rather than having all of us (who have troubles of our own) pay to bail him out?
It's not about punishing anyone for taking a mortgage they could not pay. It's about not wanting us to be punished for his misdeeds. If the government pays to bail out these deadbeats, then it's all taxpayers who are being punished.
It's not punishment for jumping off of your house's roof if you are hurt when you hit the ground. It is just a natural result of the foolish decision you made. And if you do make such a foolish decision, don't demand that strangers run in and hurt ourselves trying to catch you to break your self-imposed fall.
And to Stuck: A lot of us HAVE complained about the money that GWB was spending. Loudly. However, wars always cost a lot-- you can argue that going into Iraq was a bad idea (I agree), but once we were in, it was going to cost money.
Anyone who supports this "stimulus" ought not raise the issue of Bush's spending. Remember, deficit spending stimulates the economy! Obama told us that no, really, spending is the point, so we should not complain about the spending in this stimulus bill. So that being the case, why did the economy tank even though Bush has been "stimulating" the economy for years?
For years the Keynesians told us that it was FDR's deficit spending that ended the Depression... which is obviously false, given that the Depression continued unabated until WWII. So then the Keynesians told us that WWII, funded by deficit spending as it was, was the stimulus that "jump started" the economy.
So if foreign wars are economic stimulators, and social spending is an economic stimulator as supporters of this stimulus tell us... what is wrong with Bush's spending? He grew the government, formed a new cabinet level bureaucracy, increased Medicare benefits with the drug benefit, increased education spending with No Child Left Behind... these are the same kinds of things that are in this stimulus bill. (And yet the people who support this "stimulus" blame Bush for the economy tanking, without paying any attention to the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie/Freddie, which got the real estate bubble going.)
So which is it? Is it bad that Bush spent a ton of money, or is it good that Obama's spending in his first month of office makes Bush look like a miser? You can't have both; either spending is a waste of taxpayer money or it is not.
My vote is that Bush wasted money, but at least he thought he was fighting America's enemy in the process. As for Bush's other spending, especially his spending in the last few months of his term like TARP, it's unconscionable.
Obama is wasting even more money, and his goal appears to be to get as many people dependent as possible so he can count on their votes. He who robs Peter to pay Paul can count on the support of Paul... and Obama/Pelosi/Reid are making darn sure that there are more Pauls than Peters.
If Obama wanted the economy to recover, he could start by not talking it down all the time. Consumer confidence is needed if people are going to spend money, if employers are going to hire rather than lay off, if people are going to borrow rather than sock away what they can in case it is as bad as Obama says.
It seems more like Obama wants this crisis to keep providing him and Rahm Emmanuel with the "opportunity" to force his hard-left agenda on an unsuspecting country (like thousand-page spending bills that NOT ONE of the people voting on has read because we have to hurry hurry hurry, no time to actually read what they're imposing on their constituents!
Comment Posted By Asc On 21.02.2009 @ 21:24
