Perhaps the economy managed to pull through successfully in the past despite poor politicians. Maybe thats it - the less they meddle the better ! Or just doing enough to stop it falling flat on its face.
the fed just prints our way out of it... all the while growing the debt. now we see the end of this philosophy.
Hate to mention it in such sensitive times but it could mean going back to work in real jobs again ! Oh dear ! You know - making things etc.
Tax cuts financed with debt? Then the question becomes not whether McCain can save America, but whether America can be saved.
If you see America as a poor family, you are right, this is the wrong move, you need your money to eat, buy clothes and pay bus fare. Then you borrow to buy a house or finish your education and become familiar with the concept of investing for the future. Businesses do that as a matter of course, all the time - some do it well and prosper, some others do it badly and fail, but all of those who don't understand how to handle risk and leverage intelligently and stay away from this valuable tool bite the bullet sooner rather than later. America is a ginormous $14+T/yr business and needs to know how to do this well. Cutting taxes to get the country out of a soft business year or two is a great investment tool to use properly. The idea is that money in the hands of the Government is not nearly as productive (in causing the economy to grow and unemployment to drop) as private enterprise. Reagan and GWB did it very well. McCain wants to do it also, lets see how well he can perform the same trick and get the economy running again. What he says, and many, including me, believe, is that tax and spend (the Obama/Clinton solution) is the worst thing you can do for an economy that's slowing down at the turn of a business cycle.
Bad choice of examples. Reagan and the two Bushes collectively account for over 70% of America's accumulated national debt since 1776. All Republicans, all "fiscal conservatives."
Alone among presidential candidates of either party, John McCain actually does have credibility regarding controlling spending. It's the one thing he has done in congress that I admire him for. He will not be afraid to drop the hammer on earmarks and other waste. It may not be a huge percentage of the budget, but it sends an important message. McCain is also the only candidate making any sense at all about the mortgage crisis. The democrats think bailing out imprudent borrowers is good politics, but i have my doubts. The vast majority of voters are not in default and don't appreciate pAying taxes to bail out a bunch of would-be real estate speculators.
I see it as investment that was properly applied at key moments of our economy cycle development. That's why we are the biggest and strongest economy of the world. Don't forget that, in better times, the Republican-controlled Congress balanced the budget in the mid-90s. If Clinton also wants to take some of the credit, fine, Bill was really a centrist with lots of guts and smarts, not like Obama. The point is that debt is not to remain forever, but should follow the business cycle as well, a few years later. Money is a virtual concept anyway, the better our economy does, the more money we have. Helping the economy is the first priority.
Ditto. Not to forget that McCain recently produced a comprehensive economic plan for his (hoped for) administration that makes a lot of sense, with lots more details than any of the other two.
President Kennedy deeply cut taxes in the early sixties and government revenues continued to grow each year. Ronald Reagan severely cut taxes in the early eighties and government revenues almost doubled by the end of the eighties. The deficit was caused by enormous spending increases, on the military by President Reagan to defeat the USSR, and by the Democrats on social programs (the trade-off Reagan had to make with them). But revenues increased, not decreased. The economy eventually grew out of the deficit in the mid nineties with help from the Republican Contract with America which held back government spending, and the defeat of HillariousCare. President Bush again seriously cut taxes early in his first term and government revenues have continued to increase each year (except the first - until the effect of the cuts kicked in), even though Bush inherited a recession from the Clinton administration, and the impact of 9/11 on the economy alone was almost two trillion dollars. And don't forget the stock bubble crash of /00, and the Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Global Crossing, etc. fiascoes - all included in President Clinton's legacy I might add. If these had happened in the early nineties it is likely there would have been much less growth throughout that decade. Growth through the impact of the tax cuts (without increased spending) would eliminate the deficit within a few years. Again however, increased spending on entitlement programs (a new drug program has been added, and Katrina) have hampered the reduction of the deficit. Tax cuts do not cause deficits - excessive government spending does. Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Bush have demonstrated that tax cuts on a national level increase government revenue through economic stimulus.