 |
I voted on this Monday.
Khun Lah,
With all due respect, I must counter your logics. Allow me to pave some backgrounds here:
When Bush took the office, he inherited approximately $500 billions (may be smaller; Im not sure) budget surplus from Clintons administration. Its noteworthy that this was the first ever since WW II. Even Ronald Reagan (Republican) the champion of small government & low budget; and is revered by many Republicans/Tea Partiers could not tackle the deficit. Mind you, he had 8 years in the White House.
During Bush administration, the government size ballooned up, to name a few, Homeland Security Department; Al Hura (equivalent to VOA, the governments voice to build America better image in the Muslim world). These two were established during Bush time. Al Hura alone, its initial cost was close to half a billion. Yet, Americas image did not improve during his tenure.
How much money drained down to the unnecessary War, the Iraq War? The only benefactors to this war are major contractors like Halliburton, Blackwater, Northrop Grumman, etc. Dick Cheney, the VP, was a CEO at Halliburton
.see the connection? Yet, I heard no complaints from those who loathe big government/big deficit.
How about his tax cut bill that did not really help the poor, but the rich? Among many cuts, it lowers the income tax brackets; the most % to the highest bracket. Capital gain tax is reduced. Who more likely invest in stock markets? The rich! How about the famous death tax or inheritance tax cut? This serves only to the rich. Even the super rich like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates father had to come out against this death tax because its absurd to award the rich so much. These cuts have done little to boost the economy.
If I may add that the deficit got bigger in part because the previous administration did not completely factor in the two wars budget. This administration does.
The TARP (Trouble Asset Relief Program) fund of about $800 billions to bail out the in-trouble financial institutions including major auto companies (GM & Chrysler) and AIG was also created during Bush administration. Obama came into the office with all this had already been established. He continues the program with a belief that it will prevent the worst recession ever since the Great Depression in 1929, as well as to prevent the ripple affect. For instance, if GM goes down, auto parts suppliers, tire companies, glass panel companies, etc will go down as well. The whole industry will impact; and subsequently the whole economy. According to many economists, the TARP did lessen the severity of the recession.
May I remind you that this fund is not free: it has a string attached, interest. Companies like Goldman Sachs, Citi Group, GM have to pay back the money with interest. According to the recent reports from Wall Street Journal and/or The Economist, the Government got majority of the fund back.
My point is
it took the previous administration 8 years to turn a budget surplus into a humungous deficit. Yet, I fail to see any conservatives protested against him. The Great Depression took FDR almost a decade to fix the problem. How can we expect this administration to fix this massive mess in less than two years?
to be continued
แก้ไขเมื่อ 28 ต.ค. 53 17:44:54
แก้ไขเมื่อ 28 ต.ค. 53 01:49:05
| จากคุณ |
:
Thai Woman (ณารา) 
|
| เขียนเมื่อ |
:
28 ต.ค. 53 01:44:54
|
|
|
|
|
วันสำคัญ
