Democratic leaders hail $780B stimulus deal
That’s an odd definition of victory. Apparently only spending $800B is better than one trillion dollars. So much better that we must declare victory. Why does it seem that no one understands that the government needs to stop giving money away and then the corporations will stop looking for a handout?
I understand the corporation’s position. If the government is giving away money, you only handicap yourself if you don’t get in line for your share. I’m not going to return my stimulus check.
I don’t believe we would be in the position we are now, if Bush had simply let the banks that were in trouble fail, this would be done. By the way I don’t think the banks would really have failed. I seem to recall healthier banks actually suing each other over who actually had the right to buy the failing entity in question. I must believe that the healthier (and theoretically smarter) banks must have seen some value in the failing entity. Oh and just to be clear, I do not buy the argument of too big to fail. Isn’t that a monopoly?
The solution is for the government to stop trying to regulate the free market. The free market works. Conversely, the government can’t do anything efficiently or to make a profit. These people pay $10,000 for a toilet seat for goodness sake. Stick to defending the national borders. If the government must invest, invest in weapons, weapons systems, and weapons systems platforms.
Pop quiz: How much money did the Ohio Department of Transportation get from the Fed last year? Where does the federal government get the millions of dollars it returns to the state? How is it more efficient for the federal government to pass money to the state government to distribute to the district offices to be spent? Answer: It’s asinine.
So now we have much longer recession in front of us, a government that sees an opportunity to own more of the national economy, and a president (The Obamanator!) who is absolutely dedicated to redistributing the wealth.
I can only hope I’m wrong.
I understand the corporation’s position. If the government is giving away money, you only handicap yourself if you don’t get in line for your share. I’m not going to return my stimulus check.
I don’t believe we would be in the position we are now, if Bush had simply let the banks that were in trouble fail, this would be done. By the way I don’t think the banks would really have failed. I seem to recall healthier banks actually suing each other over who actually had the right to buy the failing entity in question. I must believe that the healthier (and theoretically smarter) banks must have seen some value in the failing entity. Oh and just to be clear, I do not buy the argument of too big to fail. Isn’t that a monopoly?
The solution is for the government to stop trying to regulate the free market. The free market works. Conversely, the government can’t do anything efficiently or to make a profit. These people pay $10,000 for a toilet seat for goodness sake. Stick to defending the national borders. If the government must invest, invest in weapons, weapons systems, and weapons systems platforms.
Pop quiz: How much money did the Ohio Department of Transportation get from the Fed last year? Where does the federal government get the millions of dollars it returns to the state? How is it more efficient for the federal government to pass money to the state government to distribute to the district offices to be spent? Answer: It’s asinine.
So now we have much longer recession in front of us, a government that sees an opportunity to own more of the national economy, and a president (The Obamanator!) who is absolutely dedicated to redistributing the wealth.
I can only hope I’m wrong.
2 Comments:
Like you said, Bush got his half and the Dems got theirs. It makes me laugh when I hear Bush referred to as a conservative. He was nothing more than a precursor to Obama.
The most bothersome part in whole deal, is that there are so many non-sensical (he's stupid, he should die, etc) attacks that I feel compelled to defend a president who coninually disappoints (disappointed) me with his fiscal policy.
Post a Comment
<< Home