Elitist view or rational thing?

[oww-that-hurt]

I say we leave the economy to free market. It will right itself sooner than it will with government involvement. Government needs to cut spending and leave alone the market. By doing so, they will stimulate the economy much faster than by spending and printing money. I've never understood those whom think that if you spend money, you will make money. The only people who can do that are the savvy bond/market investors.

For one thing, people toss around the word 'economy' like they are talking about something as casual as the size of their favorite coffee mug. When I was in college (1970's) in an economics class an assignment I will never forget is that we were to break down the cost of a loaf of bread. REALLY break it down. You know, all the way back to the cost of growing, harvesting and shipping the wheat to processing it to shipping that, etc., and then on to the other ingredients. Follow that through all the steps until you are finally in line with your bread at the store, pay for it, and it is in your kitchen. After all that, you barely get a glimpse of what the economy is all about.

Side note: with this health care 'reform' package, just how is fining us for not having insurance going to get us any closer to having insurance? We make too much for government hand-outs (which we wouldn't take, anyway) but there isn't enough left over to buy insurance. THAT is going to hurt the local economy because instead of spending money on a dentist exam every 6 months, it will now be done every year or two. Just for background before anyone thinks we can cut out our frills, we DON'T have: cable or satellite TV, cell phones, high-speed internet (we have free 56K dial-up), go bowling, take lavish vacations, eat at fancy restaurants, drive new cars, or anything else frilly.

The government spending all of this 'stimulus' money is just a feel-good measure in many instances. Many localities were given stimulus funds for more police officers or special school programs. Well, in case after case, the recipients used those funds to hire the officers or implement the programs, but when the funds dried up, the officers were let go and the programs dropped. What kind of fool thinks that if the localities couldn't afford those items before the stimulus funds, why would they afford them afterwords? It may look good at some press conference, but the reality of it is that if the local taxpayer (in Montana the locals pay for a lot of this stuff) couldn't handle those items before, and if there isn't some HUGE surge in the local job market with large wage increases, the items get dropped.

I better quit, I get to rambling too much!

[DuncanONeil]

Some say Government handouts are not so much about helping people as it is making people dependent.

For one thing, people toss around the word 'economy' like they are talking about something as casual as the size of their favorite coffee mug. When I was in college (1970's) in an economics class an assignment I will never forget is that we were to break down the cost of a loaf of bread. REALLY break it down. You know, all the way back to the cost of growing, harvesting and shipping the wheat to processing it to shipping that, etc., and then on to the other ingredients. Follow that through all the steps until you are finally in line with your bread at the store, pay for it, and it is in your kitchen. After all that, you barely get a glimpse of what the economy is all about.

Side note: with this health care 'reform' package, just how is fining us for not having insurance going to get us any closer to having insurance? We make too much for government hand-outs (which we wouldn't take, anyway) but there isn't enough left over to buy insurance. THAT is going to hurt the local economy because instead of spending money on a dentist exam every 6 months, it will now be done every year or two. Just for background before anyone thinks we can cut out our frills, we DON'T have: cable or satellite TV, cell phones, high-speed internet (we have free 56K dial-up), go bowling, take lavish vacations, eat at fancy restaurants, drive new cars, or anything else frilly.

The government spending all of this 'stimulus' money is just a feel-good measure in many instances. Many localities were given stimulus funds for more police officers or special school programs. Well, in case after case, the recipients used those funds to hire the officers or implement the programs, but when the funds dried up, the officers were let go and the programs dropped. What kind of fool thinks that if the localities couldn't afford those items before the stimulus funds, why would they afford them afterwords? It may look good at some press conference, but the reality of it is that if the local taxpayer (in Montana the locals pay for a lot of this stuff) couldn't handle those items before, and if there isn't some HUGE surge in the local job market with large wage increases, the items get dropped.

I better quit, I get to rambling too much!