This might be getting down to semantics.
Except for the 1990s (Clinton), since the 1960s the govt has run a structural deficit (meaning a deficit over the whole economic cycle), which I consider a bad, aka very stupid, policy.
But this policy has been good, aka very smart, for the politicians who were in office at the time.
Look at Bush2 - he cut taxes and grew spending, thus ballooning the deficit. This was smart and good for
him - he satisfied his ideological base, pursued his expensive goals, bought votes with huge spending programs like the Medicare drug benefit, avoided tough budget decisions, and dumped his huge deficits to the next president. He also kept promising voters that the deficit would shrink "next year", and manipulated expectations so that $350BN deficits were hailed as not so bad. That was all pretty darned smart - for Bush2 and his people. Same comment for the other Presidents and the legislators who have been fiscally irresponsible - they were smart, for their own self-interest.
That's how I see it - the govt's deficit is bad (stupid) but running that deficit has been good (smart) for the politicians who the voters elect to run govt. The politicians get elected, re-elected, and retire successfully, leaving more deficits. And the voters don't seem to notice this, they have the attention span of a gnat. Who's the stupid one?
That's why I respect candidates who honestly tell us that they will raise taxes. But they seldom get elected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukeh
JYL, that sounds nice and all but I don't think you answered my question. Isn't the government as a whole stupid because they spend more than they bring in? The people in office have changed over the past few decades but none of them did anything about the deficit and most made it worse. Isn't that the government being stupid? Take a look at my link and tell me who is solving the problem.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm |