English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If I recall correctly, Bush entered office with a budget surplus. Now, not only do we have a deficit, but Bush has single-handedly run up half as much debt as all the other presidents in history combined. These are facts.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

Now here's the confusing part... Republicans seem to assert that the economy has never been better, yet no efforts so far have paid even ONE dollar back into the debt. Now, if -I- had a debt which was always growing larger and never growing smaller, it would think that was a pretty serious problem.

I mean, it's nice if the stocks are high (if you're richer than me and can afford stocks), and it's nice that people have jobs and all, but if the sum of that equation brings us closer to bankruptcy every day, why DOESN'T that mean the economy is sick?

2006-11-07 10:22:51 · 3 answers · asked by Doctor Why 7 in Politics & Government Government

3 answers

well... the economy can be defined many different ways... this is one trick... which ever party is in office has a funny way of only noticing the things that are good, and ignoring the bad...

so, people that say the economy is great, are ignoring things like dropping construction, housing and house re-sale costs... and things like the trade deficit, which is a real problem...

they do throw around things like the stock market, which the vast majority of the market only benifits the top 20 percent of America... and unemployment, which is low, but still higher than when Bush went into office (4 percent vs. 4.4 percent)...

the national debt is also a problem... as it is growing... Republicans have cut back spending some recently, yet they are still spending more than they take in... by quite a bit...

2006-11-07 10:49:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You've heard the expression, "Robbing from Peter to pay Paul," I'm sure. Well, providing there are enough Peters to keep on robbing from and enough Pauls to give the money to, you're stimulating the economy and it remains vibrant. Governments ultimately never have to pay the money back anyway. That's the real bottom line. Hope this explanation helps. I know you are very intelligent so I'm sure you'll get the gist here.

2006-11-12 09:05:18 · answer #2 · answered by Seeker 4 · 0 0

oh weeee i dunno

2006-11-07 10:29:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers