>> My bottom line is that we need to live within our means.
I certainly believe that; however, Bush is the ONLY president to make any effort at all to address one of the real deficit problems (Social Security) and his own party refused to act. While he was criticized for Medicare Part D, it turned out to be a fairly cost-effective program until the Democrats got hold of it.
If you're serious about the need to address deficits, and I think you are, there are three things you have to look at -- SS, Medicare, and Obamacare. The rest of it, including the military, just don't have anything really to do with it. And big ticket items like Katrina and Sandy are problems, but they aren't systematic, so they're not root causes.
You cannot possibly address this problem without legislative reform (such as the Convention of States, which is a longshot, but still the best possibility for solving it before the nation collapses).
I would also differ slightly with your [apparent] view of the Bush tax cuts, in that I believe tax cuts of ANY kind are always better than no tax cuts. The argument has been made (by Laffer, et.al.), that the first Bush tax cuts were the WRONG cuts. That may be but I can recall on 9/11 thinking, "WTF is this going to do to the economy." In the end, not that much, and I think those tax cuts probably had something to do with that. |
