Replies

Very articulate articles, and man, I reeeeealllly hope that second one is correct. But my Economics degree and my career as a financial analyst tell me no. This is for a few reasons:

1. It's all wishful thinking. No liberal "Rove is an evil Sith Lord" in their wildest fantasies would credit Bush with such economic control. What happens when China is finished siphoning our manufacturing by holding their exchange rate? Their strategy is to steal our manufacturing base, and then slowly float the rates, so that they can demand more and their central bank is not as heavily subsidizing their industry. When they are content, they will cease to buy our debt with such fervor. Interest rates will rise, and high.

2. Government spending is, in general, not good long term for industry. It crowds out enterprise, and discourages innovation.

3. The strategy WILL lead to tax increases, or at worst derail any tax reform agenda. Okay, so this guy is giving up the ghost on small government, but what about private property? How about eliminating redistributive policies? That sure would be an easier sell without such high deficits.

4. If this is the strategy, why aren't we spending less on the arts and more on defense? Many of the expenditures of the Bush presidency have purchased him very little in the way of political capital. Clinton couldn't have passed the Medicare bill Bush did, and the dems made him look in the end like he hates old people. He gained zero. I f you are going to spend like a sailor on leave, how about increasing military pay and benefits, eliminating military income taxes, increasing incentives to join, increasing weapons R&D? It is no grand strategy, it is an attempt at appeasement

5. It is defeatist at best, corrupt at worst. At one time in the article it sounded like "well let's spend on our stuff so they don't spend on theirs." Well I've got news for you: WE ARE SPENDING IT ON THEIR STUFF! At another time it sounded like: "let's punt on small government, and keep power." That isn't lazy, that's evil. Since he is a freeper, I am sure that's not what he meant, but it sure is a stone's throw away.