Some economic and government facts
Reader comment on: How The Left Will Spin the Election Results
Submitted by Amaterasu (United States), Nov 5, 2010 15:31
Ben, Ben, Ben. You're forgetting a few key things here.
One, that a government deficit is no sign of a bad economy any more than a government surplus is a sign of a good one. Those are only indications of how much people are being taxed. You can have a deficit and have a healthy economy, in fact, I'm going to be bold and suggest that a government with less taxpayer funds is the one working as it should. Believing that higher taxes = more government goodies is the same logic that leads people to play the lottery. These people assume that their economic condition is the result of how much income they receive, but they don't stop to assess their liabilities or cash flow. Hence even if they were to win the lottery, they would find those funds depleted within a few years at best and be right back to where they were before. And people have become tired of the government playing the lottery with their tax money.
Second, you seem to forget the branches of government. It's the Legislative branch (i.e., Congress, i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives) which passes laws and controls things such as government spending. Bush was certainly foolish going along with the Democrat's love affair with spending sprees in the spirit of "bipartisanship", but the fact is the majority of the blame for the current economy lays at the feet of an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress. You may not want to blame Pelosi et al for the economy, but that's how the government works. Bush's blame (and establishment Republicans, who had plenty of their own pork) is that he didn't tell them to go pound sand.
Third, two years is more than enough time to get the ball rolling in either direction, as we saw during the Clinton years. (Thanks to freshman Republican control but Clinton was more than happy to take the credit) It was entirely possible to at least start the process towards economic recovery. But people are much more forgiving if things at least stay the same than if they become increasingly worse as they have under Obama. Those Bush unemployment numbers look mighty good compared to what they are now. Again, Congress is almost entirely to blame, but the political payoffs masquerading as "stimulus" hardly inspired many business both small and large to hire or confidence in consumers to start buying again. If not for Obama's disastrous economic policies, things would have began to stabilize, and people will only tolerate making excuses and pointing fingers for so long. Liberals might swallow the "It's Bush's fault" canard indefinitely, but the American people aren't buying that line any longer.
Lastly, I imagine that if things improve now that there's a possibility of some actual fiscal responsibility in the wind after all these years, liberals will be more than happy to allow Obama to take undeserved credit, even if what will do it is the antithesis of what he's trying to accomplish.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Submit a comment on this article
Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item