Why weren't they protesting years ago when we were getting in ungodly amounts of debt under a so-called conservative administration? The 700 billion dollar bailout that Bush passed? Because they are hypocrites and only whine when a Democrat spends money.
Maybe I wasn't paying attention to the right news sources, but what I saw was people that were not happy with the TARP funds Bush passed and complained about it.
Then Obama and Congress pass a so-called "stimulus" package. Public opinion was strongly against it.
Then Obama proposes a budget that exceeds Bush's 2009 budget by a good $500 billion.
The way rampant, runaway spending is currently going, its not a stretch of the imagination to see that people are going to be increasingly pissed off as spending continues.
Super, that is what the fucking Government is there to DO in this situation. They run a deficit to bolster up the economy and to stop the living standards for the population from sinking into third world country bullshit. The run a debt during economic booms and try to spend nothing during downturns (ESPECIALLY at the start of a downturn) is massively reactionary and counter to what the entire point of the government is for
If you rely on disproven, outdated Keynesian theories, sure.
That said, Bush's spending policies were terrible shit for the most part, but not spending during a downturn is the right way for a government to act.
I'm just wondering what these people thought should be done about the hemoragging job market and the floundering economy. Sit around and twiddle your thumbs for a while and hope it goes away?
Yes. Wait for the market to bottom out (it'll bottom out quicker with no government intervention) and then let it recover naturally (it'll recover quicker without government intervention). Yeah, Keynesian spending
might sound good at first, since it causes the bottoming out take longer (thus it gets more severe less quickly), but this means you're going to be in a bad economy longer (not good) and it also means recovery will take longer when the upturn occurs (also not good).
The same things they always advocate; ending taxes on business
Ending taxes on corporations is sorely needed. The way the current tax structure is, a corporation will pay 35% of its income in taxes. Now the shareholders are only making 65 cents on the dollar. Except for the fact that shareholders also have to pay taxes (currently 15%, but if Obama gets rid of the Bush tax cuts, they'll shoot back up to 35%) when they receive a dividend from already-taxed profits. Now shareholders are making 55 cents on the dollar (42 cents on the dollar if dividend caps are removed). Now add in state and local taxes.
As it currently stands, investors are boned by taxes, which means they have less money to invest in other businesses.
deregulation
Some regulation is needed (health, antitrust, and securities regs), a lot are unnecessary and only increase business transaction costs, which hurts all of society as a whole.
The unshakable belief is that ANY action by the government which alters the business environment, whether by adding incentives via taxation or direct intervention, will unfailingly derail the capitalist process and harm the economy.
Which is unfailingly true. Look what government tax incentives for employer-based health-care did for the health care system. Look at what the Federal Reserve did for the Great Depression and the current economic situation. Look at what Fannie and Freddy did for the current economic situation. Just a quick glance at history shows a slew of economic hardships caused or partially caused by government intervention and few, if any, benefits.
The problem is a lot of "conservatives" believe that being pro-business means giving some businesses special deals. This is not pro-business or capitalist. This is anti-all business BUT the ones that are benefited. Thus we see a lot of stupid subsidies, tax breaks/credits, and whatnot that hurts the economy. Not that "liberal" politicians are free from blame...most of them are clueless fucks who completely ruin everything they touch when it comes to the economy (hey there Barney Frank, proponents of Social Security, etc).