Can someone please explain to me how the government spending $3.5 TRILLION dollars over the next three years is going to "restart the economy" and provide jobs?
It's kinda like, if you ever read the novel 1984, the terminology called Doublespeak. Less is more, slavery is freedom, etc etc.
The trouble with all government spending is that any so-called "government investment" comes out of the pockets of private citizens. So the Comrade wants to suck $3.5 TRILLION dollars from consumers -- whose spending is, in a real way, a type of investment -- and from private banks and venture capital investors... The government wants to take all of this private money and funnel it into things like light rail development: railroads that run from Tampa to DisneyWorld in Florida, for example, or from Madison, Wisc., to Milwaukee. This is going to restart the economy?
A US Rep from South Carolina was on Fox news this morning, talking about the huge "investment" in education that this massive spending will provide.
Need I point out that right now there are probably just as many well-educated people as there are high school drop-outs collecting unemployment insurance. Getting an education is quite a different thing from getting a job. If there are no jobs, there are no jobs -- for anyone. I've found that my education is something of a hindrance when applying for clerical positions and things like that, and I have only a bachelor's degree, nothing really advanced. One prospective employer told me that he was quite sure I could find something else and, at any rate, with my education, I could do much better than the position he offered, and I'd never be satisfied in that job, etc.
But the greater issue is what this kind of spending does to the nation.
First is the drain on private funds this kind of spending requires. We're right now still laboring under the burden of last year's stimulus bill, which by all accounts has done next to nothing to restart the economy. Most of it hasn't even been spent. So what the hell good was that? All it does is hold an onerous debt over the heads of taxpayers for generations to come.
More to the point, is the government really the best conduit for economic recovery? That is to say, does the government spend money more wisely than private citizens? The government wants to invest in light rail -- as noted. Is anyone going to use this light rail? Or are these projects just boondoogles that will be launched with lots of hoopla, employ a couple hundred people for a couple years, and then, when the rail lines are complete, they'll just languish, sorry reminders of wasted time and money.
Second, the government isn't business. They don't do things "for profit." Therefore, government isn't a self-sustaining concern. It can't pay for itself. It doesn't make any money. The government's only source of money is us. So if those light rail lines aren't used by the public -- and they won't be, it's just as quick to drive , and then you'll still have a car when you reach your destination -- they will end up as only another useless ongoing drain on tax funds.
By contrast, private enterprise is totally "for profit." A guy starts a business. If it doesn't make any money, he shuts it down and it goes away -- at the guy's own expense. If the business is successful, it makes money, creates jobs, and generates perhaps enough cash for even further growth and expansion.
In terms of investment, government is a gigantic toilet. You feed (or whatever) into it, and everything washes away, never to be seen again. It's not an "investment." Growth in government means growth in taxation.
Government also has never in history been a useful predictor of economic growth. Like light rail. Who wants light rail? Not the public. The public wants cars -- but not necessarily "GM" or "government-made" cars.
I've said it before: if there was a big market for "green" products, investors and entrepreneurs would be flocking to that industry. It would be booming. It isn't. For the last couple of years in my "paying" work, I've been compelled to ask business people and others about their attitudes toward "green" products -- if they plan to invest, if their corporate employers are urging them to invest, if they plan on entering the green space with their own products. The answer is "NO! Not if it costs more money." It hasn't been a priority. And this was even before all the scandals broke about what a total crock Climate Change is. The green industry isn't a re-starter; it's a non-starter.
In short, the Comrade's proposed $3.5 TRILLION only represents another humongous rat-hole of waste and fraud. And it will bankrupt us all personally and as a nation.
Sound like a good idea? Maybe to the likes of the Comrade, Pelosi, and Reid, who don't know their butts from their elbows anyway, but not to anyone else. All the rest of us very clearly see what a gigantic disaster this kind of government spending represents.
But will that stop the dems from trying to jam this crap through? Probably not.
No comments:
Post a Comment