Yesterday President Barack Obama asked his cabinet to make a total of $100 million in cuts among their departments. That was “fiscally responsible” President Obama. We like him. We just wish we got to see him more often.
Today, “reckless spending” President Obama is back at work, following through on his G20 summit pledge to loan $100 billion for world wide stimulus. Heritage fellow Terry Miller explains why such stimulus is a bad bet:
It is a spectacularly bad and high risk idea to pour vast new sums through failed or failing institutions. And that is what the IMF and World Bank are. Both have a woeful record of meeting their chief missions of, respectively, spurring economic development and encouraging responsible economic policies by recipient governments and seeing them through financial crises.
In the case of the World Bank, the preponderance of economic studies indicate that foreign assistance whether provided by the Bank or some other source, is not a key contributor to economic growth and development. That is particularly the case for the world’s poorest region, sub-Saharan Africa, which has yet to have a significant aid recipient escape poverty despite hundreds of billions in assistance from the Bank and other sources over the past five decades. Even leaving aside the Bank’s propensity for ignoring corruption in its own programs, there is little cause to plus up its funds.
THE WHITE HOUSE IS FILLED WITH EMPTY SUITS. I'VE HAD TO CUT MY BUDGETS BY 20% AND ALL OBAMA HAS TO DO IS HIRE 598,000 NEW GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSTEAD OF THE 600,000 PROJECTED. HE CAN THEN SAY HE IS FOR A SMALLER GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS HAVING CUT $100,000,000. WHAT A JOKE!
Let me see if I've got this straight. We are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China so that we can keep our economy going. Yet, we are turning around and blowing $100 billion to stimulate the world economy? Why should future generations of Americans pay for stimulating other countries?! Doesn't President Obama think that future Presidents will want to have some of their "ideas" implemented? The way he is spending, future President's won't be able to do anything to promote the safety and welfare of American citizens – they will only be able to continue to increase the tax burden to pay for President Obama's failed economic policies.
Let's put our head in the sand and ignore the rest of world's poor. It worked in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out, right? Its not like anyone from over there ever effected the American way of life in a detrimental fashion. The poorer that the average person in the third world is, the less likely they are joint militant religious groups, because they would be so hungry all the time, making them less likely to do anything but find food. It makes sense to me!
Many of us self employed people are going out of business and trying to sell things off to just survive as this pee brain spends my future on buying love for himself and his spend=o=holic ways.
I see no hope in this methodology accept to buy an audience and lose a country.
So the White House and Congress acts like they didn't know about the bonuses that AIG issued after taking TARP money from the government but aren't we doing practically the same thing by taking money that we have borrowed from China and then using it to try to keep foreign economies afloat? Take care of self first because you better believe that they would not do it for the U.S.