Well, ANOTHER Republican "consultant" just doesn't get it. In this article on the HuffingtonPost, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... Alex thinks that Obama's deficits are the same as Bush's.
He seems to dig at an old idea, but just doesn't grasp it. The idea is that if you break a window, then fix it, you are really no better off than if you never broke the window. This is like digging holes than filling them. But Obama is coming into office, and the window are already broken, the roof is on fire (forests), parts of the country are still "underwater" (New Orleans)
So we aren't breaking windows, then fixing them. George Bush has left us a house falling down, and taken many of the tools to fix the house, via squandering a $5 trillion ten year surplus, and turning it into a huge deficit, and wasting it on tax cuts and wars/
Yes, if you break a window then fix it, no wealth has been created. But if the window was already broken, then yes, we are better off.
George Bush's deficits payed for 2 things: Wars which made the people of America less safe, and tax cuts for the rich.
Now the wars killed 4,000 BRAVE American soldiers, and SEVERELY wounded 20,000 + more. It killed an estimated 600,000 Iraqis, many who were simply declared " collateral damage". The war destroyed many families through death, injury, and emotional and financial distress caused by their tours of duties, which were often "back door drafts". Not having our National Guard here also caused lives and damage due to their not being here to help out during Katrina and huge fires. The war also lead to MUCH higher gas prices, which likely pushed our economy over the cliff even harder than it would have fallen otherwise.
The tax cuts paid for Ferraris, mansions, and other luxuries.
Obama's deficits will pay for : healthier Americans, better roads, better educations, cleaner environment, medical and energy research, etc.
Bush deficits were a boondoggle. Obama's are an investment in the American people. And they will pay a return, unlike Iraq.