In the last year President Obama has come under stiff criticism over spending, deficits, borrowing – they’re all going higher. So why does he get the blame and George W. Bush is let off the hook? Afterall, it was Bush who borrowed billions from China just to turn around and give it to Pakistan.
It would be wonderful if the United States government printed the necessary amounts of money to bring our debt to a flat zero, but in a world where monetary policy has been monopilized by the Federal Reserve, a solution such as this doesn’t exist.
Do you ever wonder why your brand new car/truck deprecates so much when you drive it off the lot? It’s because there are so many in circulation. Three-hundred thousand Toyota Prius’ can by no means hold the same value as that of a ’70s muscle car with only, let’s say twenty ever made.
I have heard many people – media pundits and family – say that President Obama’s spending and deficits are going to be higher than that of Bush’s. This I don’t doubt, and here’s one of the reasons why. War ain’t cheap.
The online Webster dictionary defines deficit as this: an excess of expenditure over revenue. Thusly meaning, a deficit is money that the government has to spend that they don’t have. At this rate the United States is spending over $1 trillion dollars on an overseas presence. The Afghanistan conflict is costing the American taxpayer $57,000 a minute. If you want the government to finish what they started in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, you’d better be ready for tough times ahead.
Not to mention that many are calling for disciplinary actions against Iran. If that happens, put another log on the fire and watch our economy go up in smithereens. Also, just because the president wants to pull out every troop from Iraq does not mean that we will be expenditure free. The government will continue to send millions to Iraq to support the established government.
But like I said, war ain’t cheap.