While not holding to all ideologies of President Reagan, I believe in his statement that, “…It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government…”
I will also agree with Reagan that someone had to take a hard stance on spending, which he started before ultimately caving in to pressure. We are seeing the result of endless spending that has gone on since President Coolidge held the reigns – an almost $17 trillion national debt and $117 trillion in unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare).
President Bush is not solely to blame for the recession, despite the endless claims of the current administration. The spending problems have been ongoing by both parties for a century. The meltdown of the financial markets was the result of “easy credit” of the 1980’s. Individuals that could not really afford homes received loans with questionable means of paying them.
The easy lending of the 80’s was attributed in large part to then ACORN attorney, Barack Obama, successfully winning lawsuits forcing institutions to lend money to many who could not repay it. President Clinton followed suit, in part because of the legal precedence, to continue the easy lending phenomenon.
Remember when you received your first credit card with a $10,000 limit. You could buy $10,000 worth of products and pay for it later. Your spending was immediately large, but the principal and interest that had to be paid set your future spending ability back. Imagine, a whole country getting that same credit line and you get an idea of why the economy boomed. The problem comes the day everyone reaches their limit, demand for products decline, and businesses slow. This is what happened to cause the banking collapse. Unfortunately, the cause and effect of policies are often unrecognized in the terms of the president, and few people take the time to search out the truth.
Placing blame on previous administrations is a trademark of failed leadership, as is leadership from behind. The writer noticeably skipped all Democratic presidencies in his arguments, yet calls himself an independent. The continual bashing of the Republican Party shows his Democratic allegiance to their beliefs and rhetoric. Democrats largely believe in higher taxes, bigger government, more regulations, and large entitlement programs.
I prescribe to lower regulations, not the absence thereof. You can have reasonable regulations without being excessive and you can ensure reasonable safeguards without prohibiting job growth.
Both parties have routinely failed to balance the budget, cut costs, and reduce the debt. When Obama and McCain say there is not a spending problem, they showed their ignorance to the growing problem. If either of them had a household that consistently spent more money than that coming in and owed 100% more than they had in assets, they would say there is a problem. That is the ignorance of life-long politicians and those never having worked. They will both walk away from office very rich men, leaving a disaster for the next generation.
There were 169,301 pages of U.S. Code of Federal Regulations overseen by federal regulators in 2011. There are 291,676 federal employees engaged in regulation, up 17 % under Obama. Deroy Murdock, media fellow at Stanford University, cites research by Clyde Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, that says complying with federal regulations cost the U.S. economy $1.75 trillion in 2008, surpassing all U.S. corporate pre-tax profits of $1.3 trillion in 2009. “Every dollar spent to mollify federal authorities is a dollar that cannot be spent to hire new employees, launch new products, or open foreign markets,” Murdock writes in National Review. “My colleagues at Engage America have calculated that federal red tape has squelched at least 779,203 potential jobs. If these positions were filled, today’s unemployment rate would fall from 8.2 percent to 7.7.”
The Tea Party is not a branch of the Republican, but shares that parties’ belief in lower taxation, constitutional principles, and smaller government. As Mark Levine states, Tea Partiers “proclaim the principles of individual liberty and rights in the Declaration, and insist on the federal government’s compliance with the Constitution’s limits.”
Socialism creates dependency utilized by those lusting power. The profit motive of capitalism must be removed, leaving otherwise independent and proactive people to be controlled. There has never been such a strong trend towards dependency as there is now – high unemployment, record rolls on food stamps, and a universal health plan that no one understands, etc.—and government continues to tax and spend more. Spending instead of cutting, and taxing more rather than less, is detrimental to a struggling economy. Why manipulate the economy to do poorly?
Redistribution is an economic socialistic principle claimed by promoters to level the playing field. While counterproductive to individual achievements, the money simply goes to and stays with the government. The extension of socialistic welfare policies provides unwarranted incentives and motivation to stay chronically unemployed.
Workfare was working; why not go back to it? Workfare resulted in many finding gainful employment, and the one returning to work reported higher levels of self-confidence and pride, while those left at home reported higher levels of respect for the worker. What greater reward and societal benefit is there? True success is the honor and respect one earns, not the size of a paycheck.
Since the Great Depression studies have proven that government spending does not boost the economy, it merely extends the recession. The record stimulus, Troubled Assets Recovery Program (TARP), did not lead to any “true” unemployment drops, higher consumer confidence, or home sales. Stimulus expands government, restricts the free market, and grows debt. Japan wisely quit its attempts at stimulating the economy after 17 years of failure. How often can you fix your budget by spending yourself out of it?
The government is not supposed to be in the business of creating jobs, free enterprise is. Rather than feed dependence, Republicans have pushed individuals to pursue their independence. Big governments stifle innovation, individual liberty, and job growth. Democrats would just have taxpayers shoulder the burden for as many people that choose not to work. No party is pushing to deny proper assistance to those truly in need.
The Bible says that laziness should not be subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while rewards come from diligence in work. The bible precedes and eclipses the laws of men, providing the ultimate survival guide. If God gives guidance on a topic, we would be wise to follow it.
The job of government in a recession is to let the free market work without its manipulation. Capitalism cannot work if the government boosts losing ventures, causing harm to viable ventures. Capitalism cannot work when subsidies encourage overproduction while ignoring the law of supply and demand. The success of the individual is the key to the success of the government, not vice versa. The success of the individual derives from their contribution to society, not that of the contribution they expect from society. It was the very democratic JFK that said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”