How is this good for the country?


Read the full TPM article here.

I’m NOT an economist and I DON’T play one on TV, but I am truly at a loss to figure out the strategy here.

Practically speaking it makes no sense. Politicians have been saying ad nauseum during this down turn that they need to run DC like people run their household budgets. Of course, they interpret that to mean slash all spending. Particularly spending on programs THEY don’t like. Sure, with my income not rising as fast as expenses, I have made some cuts. But not to any ESSENTIAL items. And heck, some things I cannot control (my mortgage is what it is as are property taxes…I cannot do anything to lower those payments). And no matter how much I fuss about it, we do have to eat! But I also look for ways to ADD income – do people’s taxes, look for cash back deals when I do have to shop, explore ways to have my writing earn money, etc etc.

So, fine, obviously I disagree with the GOP mantra of CUT CUT CUT and “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem!” and their complete unwillingness to compromise on that point.

But this? This is taking it a truly cold hearted step further isn’t it?

So what Cantor is saying is that, should I have an emergency, I can’t deal with it without first figuring out what further cost cuts I can make to pay for it? I thought credit cards were supposed to be FOR emergencies? So that you can get through the problem as it happens and then slowly pay it off over time if needed, but the important thing is, you get back to good health, or your car gets repaired or your water heater gets replaced or…etc etc, right? Isn’t that how most households have to live since savings are most likely depleted already?

The thing is, it’s not like the Federal Government doesn’t HAVE money. They do. Do they need to tighten their belts over the long haul to reduce the National Debt? Of course! But the point OF debt is that it typically needed to finance emergencies. Did DC misuse money over the last decade? YES! Cantor needs to look in the mirror on that one and own up to voting for many things (wars, prescription drug plans, tax cuts during war) which increased our debt. He needs to pledge not to support THOSE kind of  debt increasing initiatives.

But providing help to clean up and rebuild areas damaged by the hurricane? You are going to hold THAT hostage to more spending cuts first? Ludicrous.

I may be absurdly naive about the mindset of the economically conservative voter, but does that kind of talk REALLY appeal to them? Do they not see how uncaring and NOT compassionate that is?


One comment

  1. Very valid point. Eric Cantor’s stance here is bordering around the ridiculous and it is this kind of blatant illogical stance that enables the other half of the government to not compromise either. After all the voter can clearly see this as being ridiculous. Only if both sides of the fence stayed within logical territory, they would be able to get more support for their policies from the voter – but looks like the mantra on the Hill is to defeat the opponent rather than get a win for the voter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s