I know the spending freeze is going to be unpopular, but... I can see his reasoning for doing it, just like I could see the reasoning when McCain proposed it on his campaign. America has run itself into debt, though I also feel the debt has been slightly exaggerated as well.
... $3 trillion deficit may be exaggerated in some ways, but it's enough to show we're way more in debt than we were a few years ago. And part of the reason is because Obama's plans initially were to feed the buckling economy money that we don't have and then take it from the taxes, as I understand it. Which is fine. If it wasn't a temporary solution. That he's stopping and seeing that this is not helping and only delaying some of the problems is a good thing, but I kind of worry about having a total freeze of spending at this point. To me, that sounds like cutting a druggie who's been getting hits more often than not getting cut off cold-turkey. The economy won't like not having a leg to stand on anymore. But. Well. Learned helplessness might be a factor here
( ... )
But you also have to put it into perspective of GDP. With regards to deficit vs. GDP, America isn't near the top on that list, and that's what I mean. Switzerland has a much higher deficit per percent of their GDP for instance, and Germany and Japan both managed to completely double theirs last year.
Obama didn't come close to that.
Spending freeze doesn't mean to stop spending, either. It means to keep the budget the same, which won't happen until 2011. These agencies won't find themselves without a leg to stand on, they just won't see any increases-- or decreases.
Ah, okay, that makes things clearer. I can actually agree with something like that. Possibly also weening certain agencies and companies off of government spending. Like the auto and housing industry. But who knows? That this won't actually happen until 2011... meh.
I'm more fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so the idea of certain industries being under government control--especially money-wise--makes me cringe a bit. But. Hopefully they'll work on the areas that we actually NEED work on--such as education and health care. I'm all the way with agreement on them fixing up the public school system for primary and secondary education. Especially since I personally had to spend $300 to graduate from a public high school of a sub-par educational system just because I live in a rural area where people couldn't afford the taxes for new bonds and such.
Well, it's a bit muddled... I agree the government shouldn't be in cars or housing, but both of those industries need the help right now. There's just no getting around it. Hopefully, though, they'll repair quickly.
Well, that's what I meant about eventually weening those two industries off of government funds. Yes, right now, they need help and desperately, but they can't keep depending on government help and that's something we have to look into planning for, else we WILL have the cold-turkey druggie on our hands if the government reduces or cuts spending entirely on them when they're stable.
I don't see how that's relevant right now, though? I think most people recognize they shouldn't be on government money, and I think the industries themselves would rather not be, because then the government sets the rules far heavier than they would normally, but everyone knows that they can't support themselves for right now, so it's understandable to me that that wasn't addressed. Because the state of the union's primary purpose is to set Congress's agenda for the next year, and if those industries are recovered by then, I will be completely surprised.
Ah, no. I didn't mean that they should be addressed in the State of the Union speech, just an idea that bothers me that I like to get out from time to time. Sorry, didn't mean for the confusion there.
... $3 trillion deficit may be exaggerated in some ways, but it's enough to show we're way more in debt than we were a few years ago. And part of the reason is because Obama's plans initially were to feed the buckling economy money that we don't have and then take it from the taxes, as I understand it. Which is fine. If it wasn't a temporary solution. That he's stopping and seeing that this is not helping and only delaying some of the problems is a good thing, but I kind of worry about having a total freeze of spending at this point. To me, that sounds like cutting a druggie who's been getting hits more often than not getting cut off cold-turkey. The economy won't like not having a leg to stand on anymore. But. Well. Learned helplessness might be a factor here ( ... )
Reply
Obama didn't come close to that.
Spending freeze doesn't mean to stop spending, either. It means to keep the budget the same, which won't happen until 2011. These agencies won't find themselves without a leg to stand on, they just won't see any increases-- or decreases.
Reply
I'm more fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so the idea of certain industries being under government control--especially money-wise--makes me cringe a bit. But. Hopefully they'll work on the areas that we actually NEED work on--such as education and health care. I'm all the way with agreement on them fixing up the public school system for primary and secondary education. Especially since I personally had to spend $300 to graduate from a public high school of a sub-par educational system just because I live in a rural area where people couldn't afford the taxes for new bonds and such.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment