Government spending is too much....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8252939.stm


First off. I JUST realized today was Saturday. ooooh boy. Second, I have an RSS feed to BBC and this happened to be the latest headline.
After reading the article, I'm a bit vexed at the situation. From what I understand, Obama's being criticized for spending too much money. I'm a bit troubled considering that this is coming from conservatives and from a certain president who likes guns.


I understand that Obama HAS spent quite a lot of money for a lot of stuff, and he's most likely going to spend even more. Considering the rate that he's spending and ASSUMING he continues this rate, somehow recovering from that is going to get hairy and most likely result in higher taxes, which by the way is a necessary evil.

A certain John Maynard Keynes created a macroeconomic theory that mostly involved deficit spending. It worked because the spending helped stimulate the economy. That spending was for jobs such as bridges. Because people got jobs, they then spent money, and that spending helped other companies and so forth.

Currently that's what Obama is doing. I'm not saying that we're going to revive immediately, nor am I saying that this kind of spending is a great idea. Certain criticisms on what he spend the money on, somewhat bother me.


In particular, GM. In general, Conservatives' policies with the government and economic involvement is to stay out of it. If the government doesn't do anything the economy will work itself out. This is capitalism, where bad companies are supposed to fall and companies with good policies thrive. At least.... they're supposed to do that. Apparently, when companies are doing well, they complain to the government to butt out of their business. When their policies fail and companies have to start using the red ink, they complain that the government isn't doing enough to support them. And if the government doesn't support them, they threaten the country with unemployment and argue that it's not the workers fault that they entered a falling company, THUS the government should help the company.... Of course bonuses are basically unchanged.... I think that's being spoiled.

To then criticise the government for them bailing out certain US based auto companies for their poor standards on vehicles really annoys me.


Then there's a certain shrub who was elected nine years ago who decided to have fun with the middle east. This person, (let's just say "bush") retaliated against Afghanistan and left immediately saying that it's not the U.S's job to "nation build," a term that involve the in US spending billions of dollars smothering another country and then rebuilding its infrastructure which would (is supposed to) result in a more stable country.

(Funny enough, because we left so quickly, we have to go BACK to Afghanistan.)

Of course this shrub then decided to attack Iraf and guess what.... more or less attempt to nation build Iraq and ruin a certain Powell's chances for presidency. War is bad in almost all regards. Economies spend vast amounts of money and often result in many issues later on. Things that benefit from it: Population control, military companies, and fuel suppliers.



This is what we call a double standard. And it's even worse since Bush isn't that far behind. Your hindsight doesn't need to be 20/20 to see the mistakes. You LIVED through them.


By the way. During World War II, the upper echelon of the income bracket was taxed heavily to try and reduce the debt that war builds. Taxes were cut when we went to Iraq.

I'm not gonna shed a tear for everything Obama does, and if this does continue, we're going to be in a bigger problem. At the same time, I don't stand for hypocrisy.