You Cannot Spend Your Way Into Prosperity
By gewcew23
@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
November 26, 2008 2:37pm CST
There are somethings that just do not go together, like two positive magnate, they will just work against each other. As with spending to create prosperity, no matter if it is your checkbook, a business budget, or even a government budget, economic law dictates that cannot spend more than they have for any length of time and call it prosperity. Their are some that are demanding government spend more more to jump start this economy, but the logic behind it just does not work. Think about it like this every decade when America enjoyed prosperity has been when the Federal government practiced budgetary constraints. The 50's, the 80's, and the 90's come to mind of decades of strong economics. The 40's, the 60's, 70's' and the 00's come to mind as weak economies. If you still side with bilge pump economics let me ask you this why was the 90's such strong economic year? It cannot be because of spending because the federal budget never broke 2 trillion dollars, yet every year of the Bush administration had more then 2 trillion dollars with the last budget standing at a whopping 3.1 trillion dollars. If we use Obama economic theory that we must shock the economy bake to life then the economies under George W. Bush, LBJ, Carter and FDR should have been the strongest economies in history.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
27 Nov 08
I agree. If your checkbook is in the negatives, the way to get it back on track is NOT to just keep on spending money. That just digs the hole even deeper.
For some reason our government has not figured this out.
2 people like this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
27 Nov 08
The reason that the 90's did as well as people seem to think is directly attributable to Reaganomics, and not Bill Clinton.
Clinton, as you may recall, raised the taxes on the so-called rich... these are the tasame people that the left is complaining about over the Bush tax cuts. Bush just cut their taxes back to where they were before Clinton raised them... and while he was at it he also gave the rest of working Americans a tax cut as well... including a new 10% tax bracket for the poorest workers.
The liberals are fixated on the rich getting their tax cuts, like they was the only ones who got a break.
The liberals are a bunch of morons.
What Bush should have done while he cut taxes was also cut spending... like getting rid of those social programs and make people start pulling their own weight for a change. He should have cut all of those unconstitutional entities such as the Department of Education and others, as they serve no real purpose anyway.
Instead of acting like a conservative though, he instead increased the size of government just like a damn liberal.
You cannot cut taxes and increase spending... hell you can't even raise taxes and increase spending either, as it just doesn't work.
It took them 26 years to destroy the economy after Reagan, but the liberals and the neocons managed to do that pretty thoroughly.
Now the total bill for the bailouts and loans, and all of the rest is estimated to be around $7 trillion... which is ten times the original amount for the initial bailout.
The taxpayers are being looted while the fat cats... including China and Saudi Arabian billionaire princes are getting bailed out on our dime.
This is what happens when the government forgets that it is only the hired help who is employed by us.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
27 Nov 08
Wonder more about the sure destruction of our economy and the demonetization of our currency...
Can you say Amero?
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
27 Nov 08
I couldn't agree more and have no idea why everyone doesn't.
On the plus side, at least you didn't just come out and call supporters of 0bama's economic policies naive, believers of pie in the sky, and economic illiterates! LOL...
1 person likes this
