By Don White
What does President Bush have in common with John McCain, Barry Obama and Congressional Democrats? Regarding the U.S. economy, they’re all ignoramuses, Nichtswisser, unwisenders, and outright dummkopfs.
It should be against the law to run for national office without passing an economics test. They also should be required to pass an idiot tests. Well, they did pass, but somewhere along the line they thought they had to be idiots to run the country and we got the dregs from the bottom of the pot.
None of them know enough to stop spending. Even Bush, who ran on a conservative platform, does not know that when you try to bail out someone or something you merely redistribute wealth. Hey, that isn’t even an original idea. Democrats like Obama have run on that one for years. If Obama has his way the rich will give to the poor and we’ll have a “leveling” of wealth take place in America–something that will deal a death blow to democracy and capitalism.
Bush should know better. He comes from wealthy parents who know how money is made. Come on, Barb and Dad Bush, start talking to your errant son. Didn’t you teach him nothin? If not, let me give you the economic scoop, too:
George W. Bush doesn’t understand enough to even balance his bank statement, let alone guide a county away from insolvency. The country is wondering if he is using drugs again. Isn’t it terrible, all three of the presidents from Clinton down were drug users, and we expect there is no permanent damage?
Bush is so sick that all he wants to do is sign bills this awful Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, pushes before him, assuring the soon to be out of office Texan that it’s the only ways America can avoid a depression. Nothing could be further from the truth. Doesn’t Bush have a mind of his own?
The biggest crisis of 2008 wasn’t the financial meltdown, it was when the Democratic Congress and the president signed the bill authorizing Secretary Paulson to deliver $700 billion in handouts to banks, Fannie and Fredie and similar defunct and unstable private institutions, all without controls and supervision.
Government stimulus bills are based on the idea that feeding “new money” into the economy will increase demand, and thus boost production.
Brian Ridel believes that the best measure of a policy’s impact on economic growth is through productivity rates. Lower marginal tax rates encourage working, saving and investment, all of which increase productivity (as opposed to tax rebates, which are grants that require no additional productive efforts). Reforming — rather than merely throwing money at — education and infrastructure will raise future productivity. These necessary improvements would take time and shouldn’t be considered short-term “stimulus.”
In an OP ED article he said: It’s time for lawmakers to stop futilely trying to wave the magic wand of short-term “stimulus” spending, which threatens to push the deficit above $1 trillion. Focusing on productivity will build a stronger economy over the long run and leave America better prepared to handle future economic downturns.
Mr. Riedl is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Government doesn’t have any money, unless they beg, borrow or tax for it. Every dollar it injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. That’s where these financial geniuses go wrong. They think when the treasury prints new money it’s manna from heaven. In reality it has to eventually come from somewhere. That somewhere is you and me, the taxpayer.
Eventually we’re stuck, we’re on the line to pay it back–or in this case it might be our grandchildren and their children, and it isn’t fair. I would have let all the banks and the AIGs fail. Well, people say the entire U.S. society would come tumbling down since companies don’t have money and must borrow. And if the banks don’t have money to lend, business owners can’t get the money and, therefore, they must fire all the employees and stop making and selling widgets. That was the line we were fed.
But when we give money to banks, insurance companies, auto makers or investment bankers–or to anyone–it’s merely redistributed from one group of people to another.Of course, advocates of stimulus respond that redistributing money from “savers” to “spenders” will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store spare cash in their mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (where it finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). The money gets spent whether it is initially consumed or saved.
Governments don’t create new purchasing power out of thin air. If Congress funds new spending with taxes, it is redistributing existing income. If the money is borrowed from American investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If the money is borrowed from foreigners, the balance of payments must still balance. That means reducing net exports through exchange-rate adjustments, thereby leaving net spending on the economy unchanged.
Congressional Democrats just squandered another $15 billion on GM and Chrysler. The prepared red hen, /Ford Motors, had saved its money and merely said keep our share for later. But that’s small change for the Democrats. Now they are considering another large economic stimulus package to “inject” as much as $300 billion into the economy. The package will fail — just like last year’s $333 billion in emergency spending and $150 billion in tax rebates failed. There’s a simple reason why. It’s because that money hasn’t created anything, hasn’t changed raw materials into something valuable. It’s just money setting there to be handed out. We presume the banks will loan out the $300 billion and small businesses will make more widgets, but we can’t even be sure of that. Many of these banks will merely put that money into its reserves and won’t loan it out, and that’s part of the problem..
Congress will soon borrow $300 billion from one group of people and then give it to another group of people and tell us we’re all wealthier for it. We’re not. It’s a shell game. Money is just pushed around on the table, but you still have the same amount in the economy. You didn’t just happen to have this money sitting around doing nothing, you took it from one group and gave it to another. In my book that’s socialism of the worst kind. Bush is doing exactly what Obama said he wanted to do, level the economic status of all Americans, and I understand Obama is angry that Bush had to go and steal his thunder.