CE Week #2: “More dependency imminent”
In Charles Dickens’ novel “David Copperfield,” Wilkins Micawber delivers an economics lesson to young David that has been lost on most congressional Democrats, the president and many of us. “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”
The so-called stimulus plan cooked up mostly by House Democrats is, in reality, a plan to stimulate government and make it an even greater presence (and burden) in our lives. The appeal to speed and urgency by President Barack Obama is an invitation to overlook details of the bill, which would accelerate the transformation of America from a capitalistic system that exalts the individual to a socialistic system that exalts the state.
Notice that in none of the apocalyptic rhetoric from the president and congressional leaders do we hear anything about the power of people to overcome the recession and restore the economy to health. There is no call for us to help ourselves first, with the aid of family and neighbors, and to employ vision, persistence and risk in climbing out of the recessionary hole. No, only government can save us, when, in fact, it is government (along with our greed) that has caused our predicament.
Robert Rector, a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, has studied the House bill ( http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/ wm2276.cfm).
He finds it to be a resurrection of the welfare state, which many believe died during the Clinton administration with considerable assistance from the then-Republican Congress.
Rector notes that in the first year following enactment of the stimulus bill, “federal welfare spending will explode upward by more than 20 percent, rising from $491 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $601 billion in FY 2009.” That would be the largest expansion of welfare in the nation’s history. But it is only the beginning of Obama’s pledge to “Joe the Plumber” to “spread the wealth around.”
“Once the hidden welfare spending in the bill is counted,” writes Rector, “the total 10-year fiscal burden (added to the national debt) will not be $816 billion, as claimed, but $1.34 trillion. This amounts to $17,400 for each household paying income tax in the U.S.”
Under this legislation, according to Rector, the federal government for the first time “will give significant cash to able-bodied adults without dependent children.” Even though these people may have little apparent need of help, they’ll get a check just because government can send one.
Rector says that the House and Senate bills “use the idea of economic stimulus as a Trojan horse to conceal massive, permanent increases in the U.S. welfare system. The goal of the bills is ‘spreading the wealth,’ not reviving the economy.”
It will add to the growing number of people dependent on government and, thus, politicians, who will never show them the way out of poverty, but give them only enough money to sustain them in poverty and then tell them if they don’t vote for Democrats, those nasty Republicans will take their checks away.
How many have been duped by Obama’s personality and good looks? Don’t they understand that a socialist economy means the end of prosperity, individual initiative, personal dreams and a complete transformation of America, as we have known it? After the “stimulus bill” will come health care “reform.” Watch Obama declare an emergency in his pursuit of socialized medicine. Then there’s Social Security and Medicare, which must be reformed to alleviate pressure from the retirement of massive numbers of baby boomers. Debt will mount on top of debt.
Part of this is our problem. We have believed the marketers who have convinced us that more is better and still more buys happiness. Politicians promise to help, but in fact hurt by hurtling toward a collectivism in which individuality will be subsumed to the will of the state.
Who will sound the alarm? Who will stand in the gap? This isn’t “change we can believe in.” This is a nightmare from which we’ll never escape. There’s still time, but not much. The choice is clear: happiness, or misery.
Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.
Be prepared; I have a LOT to say about this article.
I’ll go through it in the order of the points that the author did. First off, of course Obama is acting so swift in passing the stimulus package! These are times of desperation that can’t afford any further delays. The DOW continues to drop, Americans continue to lose their jobs or pick up multiple jobs in order to counter-act for the hours that they have been cut, and people flat out just don’t have money. Next, the idea to “help ourselves first” was the general rule of thumb throughout the Bush administration and slowly, but quickly started falling apart from 2007 on, and now look where we’re at! People clearly want government help and clearly wanted change. If these were not the most popular demands then Obama would not have been voted into the presidency in the first place. Clearly, helping ourselves only worked for so long. Then there is the finger-pointing statement saying, “our greed”, and is specifically set apart from the government’s greed so that it is unmistakably making the claim that average civilians demand too much. I’m sorry that I demand to have a house to live in rather than the streets, to have a finer education so I may have a worthy job much higher than the dead-end, entry level jobs that non-college bound students end up at, and I’m terribly sorry that I demand that my parents and other family members don’t lose our entire life’s savings. And also, OUR greed? Really?! As of lately, I had never even heard of someone needing a 35,000 dollar toilet and an 85,000 dollar rug. The greed belongs to the irresponsible billionaire executives. So fine Mr. Cal Thomas, we’ll compromise; if you hate this greed so much then you will find a way to fire these executives and put people like me, college bound students, into their executive roles. That will solve both our problems. Next on my list are the general terms of “spreading the wealth”. Why do you consider this a bad thing? This is not some sort of conspiracy theory! The republicans will have their time again, but for right now there is a larger task at stake-reviving the economy by “spreading the wealth” in order to compensate for those who lost jobs, work hours, homes, and stocks-basically everyone! And essentially, by helping out everyone as individuals or groups, this will revive the economy. People deserve to be compensated for things that were taken from them. And finally, the claims about Obama’s inevitable power to get whatever he wants, and in particular about social security, will never happen. Relax! Social security will NEVER be touched. Even if Obama was a socialist, a bill reforming social security would have to get past congress-and thanks to the elderly and their influence on congressional decisions/elections, this will never happen. Stop with the conspiracy theories and take a moment to consider that we have a serious crisis on our hands. When people are thinking about their wallets, they don’t care how the money gets to them-just so long as they get it.
Connection: Imperial Presidency
The author of this article seems to think that Obama will get whatever he wants at the snap of his fingers. This will not happen! He has earned his place as president through the electoral process and is living up to the demands of the people. He will never reach a point of power where so many big ticket items are accomplished without any confrontation. He has his looks and eloquence, but through the system of checks and balances, filibusters, and committees in congress he will never retain enough “socialistic” power to be of any serious threat to the United States, as a country or as a people.
The choice may be happiness or misery, but only time will tell which road leads where. Mr. Cal Thomas is fighting change, change from eight years of economic policies that ultimately failed. But what people, including Thomas, fail to see is that no president since Harding has purposely tried to destroy America. Bush didn’t implement fiscal policies that he thought would fail; he implemented policies that he thought would work. Obama is doing the same thing. He is trying to implement fiscal policies that he hopes will work. When he tries to reform healthcare, Social Security, and Medicare, he won’t sit behind his desk plotting the downfall of these United States; he will be attempting to improve them. This Thomas and all others who dislike and outcry Obama’s fiscal policies, those who are angry because they see socialism and imminent failure of our economy (which I thought was in the mortuary, anyway), don’t know whether Obama’s policies will work or not. Nobody knows. It’s in the future, and something will happen, and we just have to wait and see. Screaming that this is the Apocalypse, these people can think what they will, but, for all they know, this could be just what we need. Or not. We’ll find out.
Connections: I’m not that fussed about our economy going into cardiac arrest. Like Mr. Kautzman said, I’m young enough to get through this to the point where the economy will rise again. The sun has not set on America yet, I think, so I’ll be fine. It really only stinks for the old people who lost their retirement plans and don’t have time to get them back.
I don’t know why the author of this article didn’t run for president. He seems to know in a certain manner exactly what is right and wrong for this country and he is sure that what Obama is doing will just kill the economy more. So my question is what do journalists know about wall-street and this recession? They know what people tell them or what they “investigate”. Does anyone really know what will help the economy? There are many theories from giving money back to the people (short-term) to making buildings more energy efficient (long-term). In truth what I know about the economy is what I have heard to; from people on the news or from Mr. Kautzman or from other sources. We all have our own opinions that develop from this information. The author obviously believes that Obama is turning America socialist. I don’t believe in people living off of welfare, but what is wrong with helping a man who just got laid off after working at the company for twenty years or an elderly woman who can’t afford her medication? What is so wrong with helping fellow Americans? When I receive my paycheck at first glance I huff and puff and say the government is stealing my money, but we should all think about where that money is going. That money is being used as the glue and the foundation that keeps our country together. Obama’s stimulus package may put us further into debt, but what if in the next year the economy skyrockets and all the sudden the economy is healthier than it has been in decades. What will this author have to say about it then? I guess my point is maybe there isn’t just one correct way to fix the economy. Maybe it truly is trial and error. At least Obama is putting a plan into action.
Connection: “Money is the mother’s milk of politics” It flows and it flows and often times it seems to appear out of nowhere. Money is what gets politicians elected, but it is also what our government is structured around. The government borrows and spends and consumers borrow and borrow and spend and it is like this little cycle and guess what, money is the center of it. Obama will either get blamed for the failure of this package or be praised for its success. Either way the money is flowing.
I find it kind of funny, now that I’m thinking about it, that Mr. Preston would always say “The economy runs well in a time of greed, and runs poorly in a time of fear.” Well, what has really pushed this recession is that a few people got too greedy, and it seemed to tip the table.
“Under this legislation, according to Rector, the federal government for the first time ‘will give significant cash to able-bodied adults without dependent children.’ Even though these people may have little apparent need of help, they’ll get a check just because government can send one.” Amen to that. Alright, well this can be seen from two different points of view. The first, and probably most obvious, is that these people don’t NEED the money, they are just getting because the government gives it out. However, if these kinds of people don’t have any debt, then that is a significant amount of money that will go back into the economy, and some (via sales tax and the such) will make it’s way back to the government.
Connection: We talked about in class, how if the government is going to give us money, we need to make sure to spend it. Well, the government would first have to give us money to pay off our debts, considering the average American has $10,000 in debt… and then any extra would go back into the economy.
In response to Alena:
I agree. People just need to buck up and stop crying over the realization that they lost the election to some random black guy. He’s not out for blood or destruction of the human race, he’s merely pushing policy that he believes will help our country. All of you critics look only at the price tag before screaming foul. It may just be me, but I don’t think you’ve sat down with Obama face to face and had a chat with him about his plans concerning the plan. So you really don’t know his intentions behind its passage.
Also, the last time I checked, we the people can choose our president. Come 2012, if we find that Obama has disappointed us far too much and made matters worse, we can elect another who we believe will help. That person can use methods he or she believes will help us. Oh but wait, this all sounds so familiar. As if that was the main reason we wanted Obama in the first place. We wanted what he had to offer. But that’s just my opinion. As I see it, people will always hate whomever is in office. And why not? It’s easy to place the blame on the one in charge.
That man sure had quite an impressionistic article there. Ever since Obama was elected I have been forced to hear my dad rant and rant about how “we’re going socialist!” Most of the time I would just say “Let’s wait it out, dad, calm down.” Well, now I’m not so sure. Between class, other teachers, extra credit speeches, and my rush-loving father, I don’t know what to believe anymore. I am convinced that this is the kind of thing that alienates so many Americans from even paying attention to politics. Yes, I can easily believe that Obama is trying to pull a fast one on us regardless of it we want to be a socialist nation or not. I just can’t quite grasp the fact that any President wouldn’t want the best for the nation. I firmly believe that those who work, and work hard for their money SHOULD NOT be forced to pay for somebody who can’t support their family or even themselves because of their laziness! This country was always supposed to be the land of the free where Americans could have dreams of wealth or success and be able to achieve those dreams. Now it seems as though those ambitious Americans will be working their tales off to support a man who smokes pot all day while his kids get into trouble. In fact it is quite possible that these two could be neighbors! It is morally wrong to deprive a hard worker from what they have EARNED! Whatever happened to ethics and honesty in politics? Putting this country into greater debt on purpose is an awful thing to do! It is irresponsible and wrong to trick the people you have vowed to help and lead! I truly am disappointed in people of today and I hope we can restore our country to world greatness and respect once more.
CONNECTIONS:
All year we have been talking about corruption in government! From water gate to the Vietnam war, we have discussed party machines and party bosses. Now it sounds as though we may have a repeat with a different name and face. It’s a hard thing to face and believe when you are told that your President is not doing for YOU what they should be doing. It’s almost demoralizing. I like to give everybody a fair chance because I know it’s a hard office to hold (the hardest), I just truly hope things aren’t as bad as they sound.
This man who wrote this article is so annoying, because he is blaming every single democrat who ever walked the earth for the problem with the economy. It’s not just the Democrats who contributed to the problem we are currently facing. The Republicans contributed to this problem by allowing the banks to issue loans for houses that people couldn’t afford to keep. People bought houses that they couldn’t afford to keep, because they were buying houses that cost at least two times more than they could afford. Where were the Republicans when the economy first started going south? The problem belongs to both Republicans and Democrats and this author doesn’t seem to realize that the economy will take both of these groups to fix it. He keeps blaming Obama for increasing the aid that the government is giving to people and the extra aid is what we need right now. He keeps complaining that Obama was elected, but it is time to get over this! Obama won and McCain didn’t! We knew this fact in November and people are still complaining.
Furthermore, he keeps blaming other presidents for creating a welfare state, but if we didn’t have a welfare state then everyone would have unequal amounts of wealth and more people would be without work, etc. I think that this man may have some good ideas, but he is very inaccurate when he blames Obama for all these problems.
Connection: Money is the mother’s milk of politics and without money nothing can be accomplished. Also we discussed the economy in class and how if the government gave everyone at least 20,000 dollars then people would spend this money on the things they want.
In response to Haley Nelson:
I can’t quite figure out whose side you’re on. You claim that this journalist should have ran for president, a very strong statement for someone who later claimed that nobody really seems to know anything about the economy except from their own personal and limited resources. Plus, you later claimed, “That money is being used as the glue and the foundation that keeps our country together. Obama’s stimulus package may put us further into debt, but what if in the next year the economy skyrockets and all the sudden the economy is healthier than it has been in decades. What will this author have to say about it then?” This sounds like the argument that would be made by a true democrat, rather than to stick with your original statement that Cal Thomas knows such a great amount that he should be running our country.
I agree with Alena on this topic. “Mr. Cal Thomas is fighting change, change from eight years of economic policies that ultimately failed”. The people want change, which is why Obama was elected. And Obama is trying what seems to him to be the best way to pull America out of this economic trouble as fast as possible. I also agree that no president has purposely tried to destroy America. There are some cracks in Obama’s plan that could turn the country socialistic, but this is the path that Obama thinks will help the United States. For example, the people who “have little apparent need of help” but “they’ll get a check just because government can send one”. This could be used in the future like Thomas said and force these people to vote a certain way, but right now this could help the economy greatly by giving money to people to stimulate the economy with spending. There will always be people like Thomas who look at what the president is doing and turn it against them. Besides that, if the people find that they don’t like the path that Obama is taking America down, then in 2012 we will have the chance to vote for someone else.