I think it’s only fair to call a mistake a mistake, and yes, I would consider the AIG bailout a mistake. I would also question the wisdom of bailing out Fannie and Freddie, but there would have been far deeper financial chaos had the Bush administration decided not to make that move. These are steps in the wrong direction, because we cannot keep sticking the taxpayers with the bills for the corporate mismanagement of these companies. It’s fair and reasonable to call this socialism — this would be the perfect example of such, with the government taking over private industry like this. That said, it would take someone much smarter than myself in the ways of the financial markets to completely understand the reasons behind handing out some government checks and not others.
The Bush administration is not, and has never been, a proponent of small government. Compassionate conservatism and limited government have absolutely nothing in common. That’s not what got him elected. Most conservatives have been consistent in calling out the President and Republicans for spending too much taxpayer money, and they are currently questioning these government bailouts as well — so we do not need to apologize for our criticism of Obama’s spending proposals.
If Barack Obama is so worried about spending all that money in Iraq, then maybe he should consider taking that 0.7% of GDP he wants to spend on the Global Poverty Act and use that money for domestic programs. Shouldn’t the Democrats, who are so concerned about the working man here in America, consider a freeze on foreign aid until all these domestic problems are solved? One thing Democrats and Republicans should recognize is that throwing money at problems doesn’t guarantee positive results. This goes double for any money ending up in the hands of UN bureaucrats.
Both Senator Obama and Senator McCain should be more frugal with their spending proposals, because it’s fiscally irresponsible to create new programs and finance new services when the feds are flat broke. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain how it’s possible that Barack will cut taxes for 95% of the American people, and still give us all these new exciting government programs and services. That doesn’t sound right to me.
Even if he only raises taxes on the “rich”, those tax hikes would trickle down to the middle class. Corporations pass on increased costs to the consumer by charging higher prices. These higher tax rates would also mean they couldn’t hire as many people to produce their products, and it might even mean that some of the company’s workers would lose their jobs. None of these things would increase productivity or have a positive impact on our struggling economy, so I would hope that Barack would consider the implications of any tax hike on the rich before he makes them a permanent part of his economic policy. After all, he has been known to change his mind when presented with conflicting facts.
One thought on “stop the madness”
We’re talking about this on my blog, too. What else could be done here? And as we discussed earlier, there is an accountability mechanism here.
I think spending is the real reason to elect McCain. He’s going to put our money where his mouth is.
Comments are closed.