learning takes time and effort, and people aren't willing to learn the complexities, they'd much rather have one guy accountable. is it stupid? yes. but to expect everyone to know a good amount about economics isn't exactly practical.
Read my sig. If we all we can expect from our elected leadership is lies, half-truths, and obfuscation then we should elect deaf, mutes.
perhaps the policies kept further job loss from happening. of course it's counter-factual so you can only speculate, but deficit spending tends to be expansionary.
I can
absolutely agree that some of Bush's policies
may have prevented further job losses . . . but that is indeed speculative in almost every case. Yet Bushies extol the virtues while rarely noting the caveats. In my book, that's half-truths at best. In one clear case, the steel tariffs, it's difficult to ascribe job effects per se but even the respective industries clearly show that companies that use steel felt far more pain than the gain for steel makers.
Let's look at deficit spending for a moment. If we were making massive investments in modernizing healthcare to deal with our aging (and increasingly obese) population, modernizing our highway system (sans the pork), removing subsidies in agriculture, real reform for schools (not testing), and developing current and next generation technology for vehicles and energy production . . . then deficit spending would make a lot of sense. Instead the Medicare *cough* Modernization *cough* Act makes the current system look fiscally sound. We've blown up one country filled with rocks and another filled with oil and are now spending billions to help the world's top opium exporter and another which practices tactics that might make a Southern Klansman blush.
Sometimes it makes a lot of sense to spend money you do not have . . . but the return on investment for the Bush administration looks a lot like his private business dealings . . . and that ain't pretty b/c he ALWAYS left someone else holding the bag.
Facebook
Twitter