[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I think some tax cuts are (maybe I should say “can be”) good for the economy, but it’s never as simple as that. GWB spent more than the govt. had. Result: Gotta borrow to keep it going, and the bill comes due sooner or later. Also part of the equation is that GWB was afraid he could not be reelected unless he spent a bundle. And now Obama points a finger at GWB’s spending to justify his much worse spending.

Can we say that big government spending is always bad? I think it can be appropriate, for example, the Manhattan Project. The money we spent on that could be paid back, and we could have kept a huge technological edge if we didn’t let the Soviets steal the secrets. Still, we gained useful knowledge and developed a higher capacity for reseach and engineering. Medicaid/Medicare is a different story. Unlike the Manhattan Project, they never stop; in fact they keep growing.

I don’t know if Obama can be included (he sounds like a fraud to me), but some of the left sincerely believes that, Solyndra and other graft notwithstanding, “green energy” is the new Manahattan Project, and it will be well worth the money. The private sector just can’t do it without government help, you see.

I don’t have anything against research to find better ways to produce electricity and heat, but obviously I don’t like the way Obama is “investing” in it.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I think some tax cuts are (maybe I should say “can be”) good for the economy, but it’s never as simple as that. GWB spent more than the govt. had. Result: Gotta borrow to keep it going, and the bill comes due sooner or later. Also part of the equation is that GWB was afraid he could not be reelected unless he spent a bundle. And now Obama points a finger at GWB’s spending to justify his much worse spending.”

Rush still uses the same lines he did 20 years ago, that ‘tax cuts’ always works creating jobs(??? US jobs??) and so they pay for themselves. But there is a huge monkey-wrench thrown into using that argument. That wrench is his man GWB eight years.

Not only did GWB leave the economy in a shambles, but he got Republicans to claim that the upside of the duel housing investment and government spending bubbles were the real economic growth created by his policies. Meanwhile jobs were fleeing the country while immigrants were flooding here. So then when it all fell apart they were left claiming that GWB saved the economy AND at the same time he had nothing to do with the economic conditions at the end of his administration.

(Many) Republicans still talk like it is 2000 pre-GWB. They need to talk post Bush. How will you keep and create jobs here, lure investment here in the US now?