by Ignacio Gutierrez

Created on: April 23, 2008

Less is more. And when it comes to dealing with our current recession, the less the government intervenes with its so-called abled body of career politicians with zero economic backgrounds (the majority are lawyers, go figure), much, much, much more gets accomplished. By simply avoiding the problems government creates in the first place.

Iraq anybody?

But here are some other cases in point. The counter-intuitive, counter-productive 2008 Economic Stimulus Package which will send out checks of $600 to most single Americans, and roughly $1,200 per family, with an additional about $300 per child. The total cost? About $150 billion. Where will the money come from considering our current $9 trillion debt? Most likely a combination of borrowing more (not less) from China, the Fed ordering more (not less) money to be printed, and tacking even more to our national debt. Any and all methods which inevitably increase inflation, thus reducing the buying power of most citizens, particularly the poor, the ones that it purportedly intends to help. But don't worry, the check is in the mail. Thanks Ms. Pelosi, you can pat yourself on the back now.

Still don't understand? Here's how it works in a nutshell. It basically takes money out of your left pocket and puts it in your right one, less interest of course. A plan ultimately paid by we the taxpayers, the same people who completely fund the salaries of such said politicians, and their complete medical coverage, which we are not entitled to. Quite frankly we shouldn't be either, but neither should they in the first place.

Another case in point, the current subprime mortgage crisis and the so-called foreclosure fiasco. This has led to the "moral" reasoning behind the bailout of Bear Sterns with the government stepping in and helping them out with yet another $30 billion. But now of course, bleeding heart left-leaning voices are crying out the "little guy" can't be left behind. The little guy, ie, the majority of people who bought homes they must've known they couldn't afford, put little or no money down on, with interest only loans they most likely didn't read any of the fine print on. But then again, why should self-responsibility be rewarded? It indisputably feels so much better when others foot the bill all in the name of "the common good." And where will the money come from and what effects will it have?

See paragraph number two.

Want a better, much more effective, and undoubtedly cheaper solution? LET THEM FAIL! It's not a matter

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>