Government Spending is Out of Control

(Click to Enlarge)

Oh my, oh my, oh my. Spending is out of control in Washington, and I'm sad to say it wasn't any better under a Republican Senate and Congress than it is now under a Democrat Senate and Congress. This madness has to stop. Government needs to shrink, government programs need to shrink, taxes need to shrink. The government is dipping it's toe in places it was never meant to be, and in some cases it is belly-flopping into our lives, where it need not interfere. All these recent bailouts and government interferences in the free market have damaged our economy far more than they have helped.

Bush says sacrificed free-market principles to save economy Sigh... President Bush, I have always respected you, though not always agreed with you. I pray for you every night that you will guide this country according to God's will. Please, please, enough already. FDR proved that throwing more money at a recession or depression does nothing but make it worse. The best thing the government can do, is stay out of it, and focus on those things it was originally designed to do, like protect our borders.

Mr. Obama, I may not like you... At all, but it looks like you will be the President, and as such, I implore you to set aside your agenda, and focus on real change. Stop the hemorrhaging of money, stop taxing the people and industries of this country to death, stop the growth of government, stop instituting government fixes that only help the government grow bigger and stronger in the end.


Grace Nearing said...

FDR proved that throwing more money at a recession or depression does nothing but make it worse.

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "more money." Do you mean "any money"? Or do you mean "some money up to a point but no more"? And if you mean the latter, what was the right amount of money and when did FDR exceed it?

Notoriously Conservative said...

Fair enough. By more money, I am referring to government economic interference by using tax payer money, and money they do not even have, to create jobs, bailout failing institutions (relief programs), and reformation of economic and banking practices. In hindsight, what is happening today, is simply a reinstatement of FDR's the New Deal, from 1933-1936, which actually held the US in a depression longer than the rest of the world. It didn't help, it hurt, and it would behoove us to note the empirical evidence we have, that this kind of government action does not work.

Grace Nearing said...

Thanks for your response. If I understand correctly, then, you are against the injection (or whatever term is appropriate) of government/taxpayer money into the economy and the tweaking (or whatever term is appropriate) of economic and banking practices.

Do you have any objections to the recent FDIC increase in the account balance coverage?

Notoriously Conservative said...

"Do you have any objections to the recent FDIC increase in the account balance coverage?"

Tricky little question there Grace.

I don't think it was necessary, or prudent, no. Yes, increasing the FDIC insurance cap was meant to increase confidence in the banking system, but how many banks have since collapsed, and what noticeable effect has the increase led to? Furthermore, the government doesn't have the money to back up the previous FDIC limit, let alone an increase. They would simply borrow from other countries, or print more money, both of which would lead to greater debt.

Do I believe that the government should insure bank deposits? I suppose, but only since there is no one else capable of doing so, and if there were no insurance, we could all lose our money at the blink of an eye. If we had no confidence in the banking system, then there would be no banking system, thus no credit, etc.

The government isn't in the business of fixing things. Look at social security for instance. The way for a free market to survive, is to let it correct it's own mistakes. Let the weak fall, and the small become the new players.

Ted said...


Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.

Post a Comment

I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.

While you're at it, visit our message boards!