I will regulate you, but don't regulate me!

I hate always using the NY Times, but until I find another website that allows one to access articles without having to sign-in, I will keep using it. With that said, this NY Times blog post gave me a few questions.

The post was mostly about Obama and the Democrats using regulation of Wall Street as a 'crowd pleaser' that would help at midterms. That may be true, but that's not what I want to talk about. The whole time I was reading this, I was just thinking, "Oh great, another invasion of the government into our lives and our work." On top of that, they want to regulate Wall Street when they seem to be just as reckless with money.

Let's just say that I'm a parent with a child. I constantly give my child an allowance, because I love him so, and I set him up with sweet jobs so he could easily make more. Basically, I help him out a lot. As for me, I make decent money, but I always seem to be in debt. I owe tons of money on the house and the three cars. Oh, and the vacation home. I like to spend money, I just can't help it. One day, my beloved son wants to spend $200 on a bike, and I say no, because I consider that reckless. Is that fair, that I am allowed to spend as much as I want, but because I am in a position of power, I try to regulate the spending of others? I think that is something that the American government and the American people need to think about.

Speaking of these American people, who the government is supposed to be of, by, and for, the post says that the Pew Research Center found that three-fifths of Americans support tougher regulation of Wall Street. I don't want to bash on my people, but I find it hard to believe that 3/5 of the country invests, or even knows what Wall Street does. Americans, myself included, need to become more aware of what our politicians tell us. It is wrong to vote them into office, and then allow them to control us like they do. We should be controlling them, holding them accountable for everything that they do.

I wish three-fifths of Americans supported tougher regulation of Congress, but the politicians probably wouldn't tell us that.

Money Talk

I won't repeat everything this NY Times post says, but basically it says that the Senate will vote this week on the possibility of creating a commission focused on finding ways to reduce the deficit. In some ways, I totally agree with this, but I do have reservations about it.

Spending is definitely a problem in our government, and not just now, it has been for a while. In recent years, the federal deficit has grown immensely, especially in with the 'bailouts' that have been given. This graph shows the federal deficit as a percentage of GDP starting with the Hoover presidency. "Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out. Bush got us in, and to his credit, started trying to get us out," Stephen Stoft wrote under the graph. 

To end the Great Depression, the federal government started huge spending projects to stimulate the economy and give people jobs, much like they have attempted during the current recession. However, the difference between those projects and those of today is the fact that Roosevelt's New Deal helped revive the country from a horrible economy, where unemployment was much higher than the dreaded 10% that we hear about today. 

Today, the NY Times also reported that Obama, in his State of the Union Address, will call for a freeze in many federal spending programs. Once again, I am so happy that the government at least seems to be acknowledging the fact that they spend way too much money! However, the deal that Obama is proposing will only cut a tiny fraction of the spending that is expected in the years that it will be in effect. And somehow, at the same time as this freeze occurs, the government wants to be able to provide more services...

Healthcare? How can health care reform be achieved if the government is truly dedicated to cutting spending and reducing the deficit? That makes absolutely no sense, unless someone in the government is named Alexander Hamilton.