by 
There’s this old saying, about being between a rock and a hard place. Well, that’s where our new President is going to find himself very soon.
You see, no matter who the President is, there is a whole lot of difference between a candidate and an actual elected official. The candidate, more times than not, says something to get elected that just will not be or should not be. I knew this even when I was in high school!
As it turns out, President Obama’s job approval numbers are dropping as his issues crumble:
Gallup shows Obama getting only 55 percent approval on his handling of the economy (down from 59 percent in February) and finds that only 45 percent approve of his handling of federal spending while 46 percent approve of his treatment of the budget deficit.
As it becomes clearer that the deficit caused by spending has landed us in a new economic crisis, entirely of Obama’s own making, his popularity and job performance are likely to drop as well.
The old recession — that the public says was caused by Bush — shows signs of winding down. But the new recession and/or inflation — triggered by Obama’s massive deficits — is just now coming upon us.
If Obama refuses to cut back on his spending/stimulus plans (despite convincing evidence that Americans are not spending the money), he has three options:
a) He can raise taxes, which will trigger a deeper recession;
b) He can print money, which will trigger huge inflation;
c) He can pay more interest to borrow money, which will send the economy diving down again.
As Morris points out, if you follow President Obama’s usual ideas to try to get out of this mess, they are all doomed to failure. That is because they all grow government at the expense of the tax payer.
If Pres. Obama were wise, he would choose option d) cut back government, reduce taxes and deflate the money. All of this would put more money in the hands of the tax payer and solve the problem.
Although that’s the antithesis of the Democrat party platform. Morris goes on to state that the government may go ahead and try to pass health care reform, but that would be the end of the Democrat party. Wouldn’t that be interesting?
Obviously you know nothing about economics. If the government drastically cut back spending, it would cost the loss of even more jobs and even more investment. Reducing taxes would do nothing more than put more money in the hands of those who already have plenty and do nothing for ordinary people (probably including you).
Obama is failing on the economic front but not because of too much spending. He has yet to equal the financial profligacy of the Bush years. Obama’s problem is that he is unwilling to take on the big banks and corporations. He should have let the big banks fail and taken over them just like the government always takes over smaller banks when they go belly up. Then he should have forcibly broken up those huge institutions that are “too big to fail”. Obama’s economic failure is that he is continuing the Bush-Paulson policies.
Knowing nothing about economics is quite the charge. Difference of opinion I can definitely see.
A simple balance sheet says that in order for an entity to stay profitable and not go into debt, that entity would have to spend less than it takes in. The current budget that has been proposed by President Obama (including the stimulus) misses this mark by trillions of dollars.
There are only two ways to reduce this shortfall– reduce spending or increase taxes (the last one is a red herring, because as taxes increase the Laffer curve indicates that less tax dollars would come in).
You, sir, are over generalizing. First, those that “have plenty” are the ones that provide the jobs for people like me. As we take more money from them, regulate how much they have to pay workers, etc., they cut back on staff– laying people off and putting people out of work.
This is hardly “doing nothing for ordinary people.” The fact that these people spend their money on things means that they’re buying things that people make– so not only do they employ people, but through their buying power they help sustain jobs of the people that provide these services.
Reducing taxes and cutting spending would have the net result of not only putting more money in people’s pockets, but allowing the private sector to step in and provide services more efficiently than the government could ever hope to.
There’s an old saying. If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Pres. Obama’s trouble is that the solution (and the solution of Pres. George W. Bush before him) was to keep digging. They continued to push people to get into more debt, and put America into more debt, believing that the country would come back because of it.
The reality is that we’ve become a consumerist nation because we’ve chased away all innovation and manufacturing to other countries because of our onerous taxation system, and when the credit market dried up people didn’t have money to spend.
Pres. Obama’s stimulus plan and budget make the money spent during the Bush years look infinitesimal in comparison. It’s laughable that you would compare it. Pres. Obama is slated to spend more money in his stimulus than has been spent since FDR– and he himself has admitted that his course is unsustainable.
I agree that the bigger banks should have been allowed to fail. I believe that the government should stay out of the private sector– and stay out of the auto business too. But if he really wanted to do something to help, he should get rid of the onerous regulations and taxation and then you would see the stock market return to where it once was.