Change we can't afford
Sunday, February 1, 2009 Filed under: Economy CommentsChange apparently means more of the same. Or rather, changing our opinion on whether trillions of dollars in national debt is a good thing or not based on who is in charge.
From September 2008:
Obama notes that "under George Bush the debt has gone up four trillion dollars, all right? So that's the credit card we have taken out on our kids from the Bank of China that they are going to have to pay for."
I'm not sure where he got the $4 trillion number from, but since this was before the $700 billion bailout debacle, I'm guessing he is largely referring to the Iraq war. Here's an update from early January:
President-elect Barack Obama predicted Tuesday that the nation could see "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come," but said the country needs to continue spending taxpayer dollars to get the economy back on track.
So when Bush spends too much and runs up the debt, we're burdening our children (true) but when he and the Democrats propose to do the same, and to even greater levels than Bush did, then suddenly it's ok? Should we all just sit back and watch them keep spending us into oblivion for the next several years, so then it will be not only our children, but our grandchildren and great-grandchildren on the hook?
We have heard a lot of complaining about the cost of the Iraq war for years now, and yet according to the Wall Street Journal, this one bill alone would cost more than the entire Iraq war, and they're just getting started.
If this bill passes, I fear that we will be digging ourselves into a hole from which it will be nearly impossible to come out of. Look what has happened to several states which allowed out-of-control spending for years, they need a bailout. The bill just passed by the House offers that bailout to the states. But who will bail out the federal government when reality catches up with them?
