Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
|
I'll go along with that. Let the states pay for what they can justify and afford rather than Washington giving them money. Maybe that will help put an end to federal boondoggles and incentives for Congressmen to 'bring home the bacon'. Let's make the federal government a lean operation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
So you dont think five -six quarters of positive GDP growth (ave 3+%) is a good thing? or a positive result of the government's action? Or that unemployment would have likely been even higher (as much as 2-3%) than the current 9+%.
|
Not if Obama is artificially inflating the economy with $750 billion of borrowed money, and where he wants to do it again with at least $150 billion this year. Not when the GDP annual growth estimate for the 2nd quarter of 2010 was revised downward to 1.6%
GDP Growth Revised Lower to 1.6% - TheStreet where the explanation is that the federal money supply ran out.
Quote:
|
Economic growth in the second quarter was even more tepid than originally reported, the government said Friday, which more or less validates other recent economic indicators pointing to a slowdown in the recovery.
|
---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Subsidies (like tariffs) are America's way of exercising economic sovereignty in a globalized economy. Without them, America cannot compete on price due to labour, land, and other operational costs.
|
So then, if the US can't compete in say the market for steel, then we the taxpayers get to subsidize the steel industry to make up the difference. Similarly with other subsidized products and services. That seems like a pretty dumb idea, especially when I'm being forced to pay for something I wouldn't use in the first place. If the people running the business can't make a profit, they should be doing something else.