Musicmystery
Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Let me give you an analogy. Think of a household where both parents work, and there are kids who don't. Common enough. For whatever reason, the family income decreased at the same time that their debt increased. What is the proper course of action?
Any sane person would conclude that they either increase their income or cut their expenses. But to say that as a matter of principle, they will maintain spending because it would be wrong to deprive themselves and their children... that's insane. And that's what's happening today in our country.
But it's not a household.
Under your example, taxes should have been raised, further slowly an economy only slowly recovering from a recession, and a jobless one at that, throwing even more people out of work, decreasing tax revenue further and increasing unemployment claims. OK, can't do that.
So cut spending--OK, on what? Much as I'd like to see us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, just packing up and leaving them to the mess isn't a great idea. Medicaid and Social Security are helping to solve a problem we used to have and don't want back. And while I may not like the spending, stimulus money to help the economy during a time when we can no longer use monetary policy (as interest rates are already so low) short term is a reasonable--and most economists argue necessary--approach to getting the economy growing and employing again--in turn raising revenue again.
Addressing health care is an important part of this. It's an ever growing cycle we keep ignoring, and it's an ever growing financial drain on households and businesses, small businesses in particular. Fixing it addresses the structural problem.
Your household example is also simplistic even for a household. If Mom and Dad already work every waking hour, how are they going to increase their income? If they or the children are ill or injured, what about then, especially if the care is expensive and keeps them from working? What if there are no jobs? What if the new jobs pay a fraction of the old ones? What if costs continually rise while they work their asses off? What if their taxes rise will they're doing that? What if the programs they depend on are abruptly cut? Life isn't so cut and dry, Steven.
Bush had a plan that called for ever more expenditures leading to a financial crisis. Such a crisis doesn't disappear by sprinkling magic Obama powder on it or by sacrificing a lamb in joint session of Congress.
Now, at least we have a plan to reverse this spending, as the figures I quoted demonstrate in part. And over the next four months, as is already starting to happen, new orders will force business, already with low inventories, to hire to fill orders again. We're already over the recession; we'll then gradually get over the job slump and be back to work--this time wiser, I hope, those households setting money aside for trouble and for the future as best they can.
If things were so simple, those unemployed would just go get jobs. Lazy fuckers. Oh.....what jobs?
Yes, you and I would search out needs and create opportunities. We're also experienced professionals. Let's not pretend that always easy.
Yup, we're spending too much money. And changing that is already underway.
|
RE: Lone senator blocks unemployment benefit extensions - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread