Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
It isn't all about debt ya know. There are people involved. people whose children will go without food, and whose parents will go without care, and who may, just may, need some kind of help whilst out of work.
Cutting government spending, by cutting 'entitlements' may take something off the headline debt figure, but it is a false economy. If people aren't able to afford even the basics for survival then they don't spend. By cutting entitlements you remove a swathe of people from active involvement in the marketplace.
Better to give those benefits and have those people spending that money back in the shops. And better to have those with some financial wriggleroom confident enough that they are not fearful of losing their jobs and starving on the streets, else they also will spend less.
Cutting benefits is a quick fix that ultimately damages the country in real terms.
|
No, it isn't better! The number one priority for any country's economic health, is to maintain a good private sector.
That's the people like you and me, that pay the gov't our money. If the private sector businesses go bust, the gov't will be TOTALLY OUT OF $$$, and unable to pay it's debt. You will be bankrupt pretty soon, and unable to buy ANYTHING. Our money won't be worth the paper it's printed on. That's a financial collapse, and THAT is something you and I, NEVER want to see happen.
That is what we're headed for - and everybody knows it if they're into economics at all - it's like the Soviets, when they overspent during the Cold War years. They kept it up for about 30 years, but inevitably it wiped them out.
We could cut a lot of fat out of the federal gov't - no doubt about it. But the Democrats know that the more people they have getting some kind of $$$$ from the gov't, the more Democratic voters they are likely to get on the next election day.
So they spend, and spend, and spend, and of course, grow the federal gov't bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and ...